Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


*" CLOSED 

STACKS 



QJ 

SAU HWNCI0O, :!AR y" 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

AW to be taken from lite Library 



3 1223 06155 9341 



tsoo 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1992 
2:00 P.M. 



BOw 









Y 2 1 «fc 



!**«* 



*-\<> 



■*fo 



191-R 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
2? 
26 
27 



Reported by: 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1992 
2:00 P.M. 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
zx Shorthand Reporter 



6 47594 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
171 SFPL 09/28/01 6 



10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 



11 

APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI , Chairman 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 
SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

MEMBERS ABSENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chairman 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 



} 



5 

6 
7 
8 
9 



25 
26 
27 
28 



RUSSELL S. GOULD, Secretary 
Health and Welfare Agency 

MOLLY J. COYE, M.D., Director 
Health Services 

DOUGLAS J. HITCHCOCK, Executive Vice President 
California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems 

JOHN QUIMBY, Legislative Advocate 
County of San Bernardino 

BILL GARCIA, State Advisor 
American G.I. Forum 



SHERRIE GOLDEN, Legislative Advocate 
-, 4 Californai State Employees Association 



FRED SHANBAUR, Commissioner 

California Medical Assistance Commission 

SENATOR DAN McCORQUODALE 

SENATOR BILL GREENE 



Ill 

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) 



SENATOR LEROY GREENE 

j JAMES LAKE, Ph.D., Professor 
Molecular Biology 
U.C.L.A. 



4 



g DAN HIRSCH, President 

Committee to Bridge the Gap 



6 

7 
8 
9 

10 j 

I 

12 
13 
14 

ii 

16 

I 

Ii 
I 

17 

l| 
18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



DANA GLUCKSTEIN, President 
Americans for a Safe Future 

JAMES S. ADAMS 
Redwood Alliance 

SHERRY LEE MEDDICK, Coordinator 

Radwaste Campaign 

Greenpeace 

LIBERTY GODSHALL 

Americans for a Safe Future 

MARY RAFTERY, Policy Analyst 

California Public in Trust Research Group (CALPIRG) 

WARD YOUNG, Environmental Educator 
Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition 

MARY BETH BRANGAN 
Nuclear Democracy Project 

PHILIP M. KLASKY 

Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition 

DON EICHELBERGER 
Abalone Alliance 

JONATHAN SANCHEZ, President 

California Hispanic Publishers Association 

CHARLES CAREY, Vice President 

California Association of Food and Drug Investigators 

WILLIAM M. PRUITT, Member 
Youthful Offender Parole Board 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Statement of Committee Intent by SENATOR PETRIS ] 

Governor's Appointees; 



RUSSELL GOULD, Secretary 

Health and Welfare Agency 1 

Statement of Committee Intent by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI 

re: Testimony on Community Care Licensing 1 

Witnesses in Support; 

DOUG HITCHCOCK, Executive Vice President 

California Association of Hospitals 

and Health Systems 2 

JOHN QUIMBY, Legislative Advocate 

County of San Bernardino 2 

BILL GARCIA, State Advisor 

G.I. Forum 3 

SHERRIE GOLDEN, Legislative Advocate 

California State Employees Association 3 

FRED SHANBAUR, Commissioner 

California Medical Assistance Commission 4 

SENATOR DAN McCORQUODALE 4 

Witness in Opposition: 

SENATOR BILL GREENE 6 

Appointee's Lack of Qualifications 

and Experience in Area 6 

Appointee's Refusal to Look at 

Information 7 

Lack of Sensitivity 7 

Discrimination in Community Care Licensing 10 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 



Witness in Support: 

SENATOR LEROY GREENE 11 

Support of SENATOR DIANE WATSON 11 

Discussion of Proposed Nuclear Waste Disposal 

Dump at Ward Valley (MR. GOULD and DR. MOLLY COYE) 12 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

JIM LAKE, Ph.D., Professor 

Molecular Biology 

U.C.L.A. 12 

Revolution in Molecular Biology 13 

On-site Storage in Molecular Biology 13 

Rates of Decay of Radioactive Chemicals 13 

Changes in Molecular Biology 14 



Use of Fluorescent Dyes Instead 
14 of Radioactivity 14 



15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Use of New Enzyme 14 

Need for Adjudicatory Hearing 14 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reasons for Opposition to Dump 15 

Leakage of Material below 100 Feet 16 

CEQA Hearing Vs. Adjudicatory Hearing 17 

Thumb-nail Sketch of Molecular Biology 18 

Reliability of DNA Sequencing 19 

Federal Mandate for Dump 20 

DANIEL HIRSCH, President 

Committee to Bridge the Gap 20 

Concern in Scientific Community about 

Adequacy of DHS ' s Peformance 21 

DHS Refusal to Release Information 

Necessary for Independent Review 21 



VI 



I 

2 Most Projected Radioactive Waste 

Would Come from Two Companies 21 

DHS Failure to Have Companies 
4 Examine Alternative of Recapturing 

Tritium 22 

S 

Contractor's Failure to Do Analysis 

6 on Possibility of Leakage 22 

7 Misconception that Radioactive 

Migration is Upward 22 

8 

Suppression of Data which 
9 Indicated Contractor's Assumption 

False 23 

Tritium Already 100 Feet Down 2 3 

Source of the Tritium 23 

12 

Concern of State Water Quality Board 

13 and EPA regarding Migration 24 

14 DHS's Blue Ribbon Panel Not Allowed 

to Deal with Validity of Site and 

15 Migration Models 24 

16 Told to Design System for 

Monitoring Site 24 

17 

Refusal of DHS to Measure below 

18 100-Foot Level 25 

19 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

20 Opportunity for Panel to Prepare 

Minority Report 25 

21 

Possibility of Contaminating 

Acquifer and Colorado River 26 



i 



3 Need for Adjucatory Hearing 26 



24 Question of Whether DHS Has Acted 

Properly in Siting Ward Valley 27 



25 
26 

27 



Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reasons for Refusing Requests 27 



DHS Meetings with Advoates of Dump Site 
-X without Others being Notified or Present 28 



Vll 



I 



9 



U.S. Ecology's Application for License 29 

Pending Contested License Proceeding 29 

Effect of Wrong Decision Based on 

Incorrect Information and Assumptions 29 

Procedures of DHS in Violation of Law 30 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Closeness of Proposed Site to 

Colorado River 30 

Lack of Examination of Potential 

Impact on River 30 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Requests for EIR on Colorado River 30 

Request to Re-open Environmental Impact 
Statement 30 

Connections to Colorado River 30 

Tritium Findings and Potential 

for Recovery 31 

Further Measurements below 100 Feet 31 

Lack of Response to Request by DHS 31 

Dispute over Necessity for Adjucatory 

Hearing 31 

Requirement of NRC for Hearing 31 

California Is Agreement State 32 

State's Regulations Must Be 
Compatible with Feds 32 

State's Failure to Issue Regulations 

on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings 

for Nuclear Materials 32 

Reasons for State's Conduct 33 

26 

Questions by SENATOR ROBERTI to MR. GOULD 

27 re: 

28 Possibility of Holding Adjucatory Hearing 34 



Vlll 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

8 

9 

10 

i 
i 
II 

12 

13 j 

.4 ! 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Use of CEQA Process Instead 

Response by MR. HIRSCH 

Lack of Adhering to Regulations of 
Atomic Energy Act and Health and 
Safety Code 

Response by MR. GOULD 

Lawsuit 

Ex Parte Meetings 

DANA GLUCKSTEIN, President 
Americans for a Safe Future 

Concern with DHS ' s Licensing Process 

Viewing of Chernobyl Documentaries 

Request for Delay of Confirmations 
until Adjudicatory Hearing Held 

Liability of California Taxpayers 

Track Record of U.S. Ecology 

DHS ' s Contention of Low Level Waste vs. 
Highly Carcinogenic Nuclear Waste 

Potential Fiscal Nightmare 

Lawsuit on Constitutionality of Federal 
Mandate for Dump 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO to MR. GOULD re: 

Request to Commit to Hold Adjudicatory 
Hearing on Ward Valley 

Possibility of Losing Confirmation 
Votes 

Appropriateness of CEQA Process 

Involvement of League of Women Voters 

Lack of Public Knowledge of Proposed Dump 

Response by DR. COYE re: League of 
Women Voters ' Involvement in Process 



34 
35 

35 
35 
35 
36 

37 
37 
38 

39 
39 
40 

40 
40 

40 



42 

43 
44 
44 
45 

46 



IX 



I 

2 Personal Involvement with Hearings 48 

JIM ADAMS 

Redwood Alliance 49 






Necessity for Adjucatory Hearing 50 

Request for Delay of Confirmations 50 

Numerous Questions that Must Be Answered 51 



4 
5 
6 

7 

SHERRY MEDDICK, Coordinator 
8 Radwaste Campaign 

Greenpeace 52 

9 

Attempt to Analyze Waste Stream Data 53 

Inability to Access DHS Information 53 

Data Used in EIR Provided by U.S. Ecology 54 

No Independent Analysis to Verify Data 54 

Constant Revision of DHS Figures on 

Amounts of Various Wastes 55 

Lack of Understanding of Ward Valley's 

Hydrology 56 

Request for Adjucatory Hearing 57 

LIBERTY GODSHALL 

Americans for a Safe Future 58 

Risk to State's Water Supply 58 

Request for Delay of Confirmations 59 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI of 
MR. GOULD and DR. COYE re: 

Number of Other States that Have 

Sited Federally Mandated Dummp 59 

Reason California Is Moving so 

Rapidly 60 

Possibility of Restricted Use of 

Out-of-State Dumps 60 

Destination of Present Nuclear Waste 61 



Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

3 Opponents to Confirmation Established 

Prima Facie Case on Need for 

4 Adjudicatory Hearing 62 

5 Response by SENATOR PETRIS 63 

6 Urge Appointees to Reconsider 

Position on Adjucatory Hearing 64 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Difference between CEQA Process 

11 and Adjudicatory Hearing 66 

12 Reasons for Concern about Adjudicatory Process 67 

13 Response by MR. HIRSCH re: 

14 CEQA Process vs. Adjucatory 68 

15 Public Has Never Won in Adjudicatory 

Hearing 70 

16 
17 



->T 



Put Over MR. GOULD'S Confirmation 65 

Response by SENATOR MELLO 65 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO of DR. COYE re: 



Type of Hearing 70 

Appellate Rights 71 

MARY RAFTERY, Policy Analyst 

19 California Public in Trust Research Group 71 

20 What Would Happen if the Three Existing 
Dumps Closed Down 71 

21 



Need for Adjudicatory Hearing 72 



WARD YOUNG, Environmental Educator 

23 Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition 72 

24 Legacy for Future Generations 7 3 

25 Request for Adjudicatory Hearing 74 

26 MARY BETH BRANGAN 

Nuclear Democracy Project 74 

2X 



XI 

I 



2 PHILIP KLASKY 

Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition 74 

Request for Delay of Confirmations until 

4 Adjudicatory Hearing is Granted 75 

5 Possibility of California Becoming Nation's 
Nuclear Dumping Grounds 

6 

DHS ' s Dependence on U.S. Ecology for 

7 All Information 75 

8 DON EICHELBERGER 

Abalone Alliance 76 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Closing of National Guard Armories 

17 to Homeless 79 

18 Community Care Licensing Concerns 79 

19 Response by SENATOR PETRIS 80 

20 Response by MR. GOULD 81 

Comments of SENATOR BILL GREENE 81 

22 Request for Names and Addresses of Former 

Witnesses by SENATOR PETRIS 82 

23 

24 



Lack of Information about CEQA Hearings 76 

NRC Hearings on Rancho Seco 7 6 

Lack of Personal Accountability 77 

Urge Adjudicatory Hearing 77 

Concept of Dump vs. Repository 78 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO of MR. GOULD re: 

Letter from ASSEMBLYMAN FILANTE 78 



Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 



Health Insurance Coverpage and 

25 Availability of Health Care 83 

I! 

26 Various Proposals 84 

27 Priority Populations 84 
2x AIM Program 85 



Xll 



Availability of Health Insurance 

Coverage 86 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

New Initiatives 87 

Desire to Continue Discussions 88 

Intention to Put Over Confirmation 88 

Discussion 89 

MOLLY COYE, M.D., Director 
I Department of Health Services 91 

Background and Experience 91 

Witness with Concerns: 

JONATHAN SANCHEZ, President 

California Hispanic Publishers Assocciation 91 

Request for Delay of Confirmation 92 

Need for Outreach to Hispanic Communities 92 

Need to Use Community Newspapers for Outreach 94 

Suggestion on Health Insurance 95 

Witnesses in Support: 

DOUG HITCHCOCK, Executive Vice President 

California Association of Hospitals and 

Health Systems 96 

CHARLES CAREY, Executive Board Member 

California Association of Food and Drug 

Investigators 97 

Intention to Put Over Confirmation by 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI 98 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Cal-OSHA 99 

Access to Health Care 99 

Proposition 99 Program 99 



Xlll 



Rebuttal by DR. COYE 99 

Intention of Committee 100 



Background and Experience 101 

Motion 102 

Committee Action 103 

Termination of Proceedings 103 

Certificate of Reporter 104 



4 WILLIAM M. PRUITT, Member 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 101 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 

2 , \ 



23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
28 






3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

i"i 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 

:s 



1 
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00-- 
SENATOR PETRIS: Dr. William Mayer, Director of the 
Department of Mental Health, has been put over for hearing until 
next week, Wednesday, March 25th. 

We have had requests that we move to a larger room. 
Unfortunately, all the larger rooms are occupied so that is 
impossible. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 

items . ] 

I 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Russell Gould, Secretary of 

Health and Welfare, was heard three weeks ago. The Rules 

Committee heard a great deal of testimony relative to Community 

Care Licensing. Mr. Gould responded to the Rules Committee in 

,writing, and we're not going to take additional testimony on 

this issue in the Rules Committee today. Mr. John Healy, 

however, the acting Director of the Department of Social 

Services, is here today and is available to meet with and speak 

to anyone who is here regarding Community Care Licensing. Room 

115, which is next to the hearing room, is available for this 

purpose. 

We also took some testimony with regard to Ward 
Valley, and we'll take additional testimony on that matter 
today. For this, we will ask Dr. Coye to come forward with 
Mr. Gould since it affects both appointments. 

So with that, we will take up Russell Gould, 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



2 

Secretary of Health and Welfare Agency, and then when we get 
into Ward Valley, we will take up Dr. Coye as well. 

Now, if I'm not mistaken, we had some people in 
addition who wanted to testify on this matter, and in addition 
we had some questions. We will do all the people who want to 
testify here. We'll start with those who may be here in 
support. 

If you're on Ward Valley, however, why don't you wait 
until we have a chance to hear both Mr. Gould and Dr. Coye. 

Are there witnesses here in support? 

MR. HITCHCOCK: Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name is 
;Doug Hitchcock. I'm Executive Vice President of the California 
iJAssociation of Hospitals and Health Systems. 

We've previously communicated to the Committee in 

writing our support for the confirmation of Mr. Gould for this 

i| 

position and just wanted to reiterate our support for Mr. Gould 
Itoday . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Is there anyone else? Please come forward. 

MR. QUIMBY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
■John Quimby, representing the County of San Bernardino. 

I've been asked by the Board of Supervisors to appear 

i 

'and indicate to you the Board's support by resolution of 

^r. Gould's appointment. 

As a personal note, we worked closely with him when 

he was with the Department of Finance, and the personal side is, 

I remember Russ Gould when he was a deputy sergeant-at-arms when 



3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



3 

I was a Member of the Assembly then. Then he worked his way up 
in the right way. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: It's in the resume here. 

MR. QUIMBY: Is it? I didn't know whether you knew 
that . 

But anyway, we are — my Board wants you to know that 
we ask you to vote for his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Quimby. 

Someone else, please. Please come forward. 

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
four organizations -- the American G.I. Forum; LULAC, the League 
of United Latin American Citizens; the RNHA, the Republican 
National Hispanic Assembly; and ULPAA, the United Latino 
Political Action Association -- have asked me, and my name is 
Bill Garcia, and I'm the state advisor for the G.I. Forum, to 
come and reiterate our position of a letter that we send in 
support of Mr. Gould. And we're here today to ask that you vote 
affirmatively in his confirmation. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Next. 

MS. GOLDEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Members. For the 
||record, I'm Sherrie Golden, representing the California State 
Employees Association. 

I, too, would like to register CSEA's support for 
Mr. Gould and ask for the approval of his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



4 

MR. SHANBAUR: Fred Shanbaur. I'm a Commissioner 
with the California Medical Assistance Commission, and I want to 
give my support to Dr. Molly Coye and Russ Gould. I have worked 
with both of them, and I find it quite interesting. They are 
both dedicated people. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

SENATOR McCORQUODALE : Senators, I think this is the 
first time that there's been an Administration appointee that 
I've come to give support to since I've been in the Senate. 

But if you'll recall, a year ago or a little better, 
this body appointed me and several other Senators, with me being 
the lead person, to deal with the issue of realignment. So, I 
had the first opportunity to work with Mr. Gould at that point 
and found him to be very adept and good at dealing with the 
issues and bringing to focus the issues that we had to deal with 
through that process. 

Since then, after we were successful in doing that, 
I've dealt with him on a number of occasions in the Department. 
I chair the Committee on Developmental Disabilities, and I found 
that not only in his own effort is he sensitive to the problems 
of individual -- the developmentally disabled, but that he's 
been willing to also deal with the much broader range of 
problems, including the people who are appointed to deal with 
concerns within the Agency. 

One of the problems that I understand that's been 
raised about the problems related to, in some cases, licensing, 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



5 
with problems related to the amount that we pay to people who 
operate residential homes, are all serious problems; all issues 
that we have to deal with. But I found him willing as we worked 
with it in the narrower sense of the developmentally disabled 
that he's willing to do that, that he has been very open to 
discussions and meetings, and really spending a tremendous 
amount of time. 

My experience with agency secretaries in the past has 
been that if you call and want them to come to your office and 
discuss issues with you, they'll show up, they'll stay for a few 
minutes, and then they're gone. And you're doing well if you 
get somebody assigned out of that process to meet with you. 

But Mr. Gould has been willing to spend a tremendous 
amount of time working on the individual, specific problems, and 
trying to get a resolution, cut through all the problems that 
often go way down through a department or agency, to deal with 
the issues. 

So, I'm here today to give my support to Mr. Gould. 
I think that he's taken a very complex and difficult problem, 
difficult agency to deal with, with a lot of problems, and I 
think he's set out on a course to deal with them. While he may 
not have dealt with all of them as fast as some people may feel 
is necessary, I'm convinced that he will. That he will stay on 
a course to deal with these issues, and that many of the 
complaints that you would have heard five years ago, ten years 
ago, all through the time in this Agency, well, at least the 
issues will be addressed. That if there are parties on both 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
28 



6 
sides who want to resolve the issues, who are willing to give 
the time and effort, that they will be dealt with, will be 
addressed. And I think that we'll see some significant changes 
in this Agency under his leadership. 

So, I'm here to give you my indication of support and 
urge that you confirm him as Secretary of Health and Human 
Services . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Is there anyone else? Is there anyone in opposition? 

SENATOR BILL GREENE: Mr. Chair and Members, I'm very 
Imuch in opposition. My experience with Mr. Gould is just the 
opposite of Senator McCorquodale ' s, and maybe there's a reason 
;for that; I don't know. 

Mr. Gould, number one, has no background, no 
qualifications in this area. 

I'm not saying he's a bad person, though. He should 
be appointed to some other position. He doesn't have the 
sensitivity. He doesn't understand the area. 

He wouldn't have to turn on the water and bring in 
all these people if he was what people say he is. The Governor 
wouldn't have to call you, Mr. Chairman, if he is what he says 
he is . So, it's obvious that something is up. 

Let me tell you what. I was — because of the 
problems brought to my attention, as well as Senator Watson, as 
well as Senator Leroy Greene, about discrimination in his 
Department, I was calling him. I called him last year to ask 
him — to report to him, to ask him would he look into it, 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

18 

I 

19 

1 1 

20 



~>i 



23 

:i 
25 

26 

27 
28 



7 
offering to get all the information, all the evidence to him. 
This man, I will say he was honest. He told me no. 

He told me straight-out no. I will say he was honest, and he 

I 
was straightforward. I will give him credit for that. 

But I'm a Member of the State Senate. I mean, if I 
can't bring information to his attention, what can a citizen do? 
I mean, my -- my experience with him is just the opposite of 
Senator McCorquodale. 

Now maybe, maybe it's because I'm black, or 
something like that. And you know I don't — I don't rely on 
that. You people know that. 

But this man immediately didn't stammer, he didn't 
stutter, he didn't hesitate. He told me no. 

Now, as far as I'm concerned, a person like that is 
not — doesn't have the sensitivity to head that Agency. And I 
have no knock on him as a person. I'm sure he's everything 
people said, but that's the wrong job for him. 

I was bringing a very important, a very sensitive 
problem to his attention, a problem to his attention of where 

the person who heads Licensing is systematically putting black 

i 
businesses out of business. While we are being forced to take 

! black youth, either return them to jail, or put them out in the 

streets, and gentlemen, you know the problem that we have. 

I live in the midst of this. Mr. Gould doesn't live 

in the midst of this. I have to deal with this everyday. And 

here I'm -- I'm trying to bring to his attention something that 

not only is injurious to our youth, but it's injurious to people 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 ;! 

18 

I 
19 

j 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



8 
trying to make a living in it. This man told me no. 

I said, "Can I — can I bring it? Can we give you 
the paperwork?" You know, it's a selfish argument. He said no. 
He wasn't interested. He didn't even give me an opportunity to 
— I mean, I came unglued when -- after he said no. 

But this man just automatically and immediately 
turned me down. And I'm a Member. I'm sitting on top of the 
problem. He knows the area that I represent. He knows the 
make-up of that area. He knows the youth that they're dealing 
with come from my area. And this man told me no. 

And we're going to make him the Director of the 
Health and Welfare Agency? Well, fine. I would have no problem 
with that if you move Community Care Licensing out from under 
that Agency. 

I mean, so, what I'm saying is that that position 
deals with too many sensitive things. We're in trouble now, 
gentlemen. We're in trouble now. Our laws are not being 
followed. That Agency is not carrying out the law, even half, 
as you, or I, or the most conservative Members of this house 
ever intended. 

I called to bring it to the attention of the man 
who's going to be the Director. He just automatically tells me 
no. He knew what it was about. He was sitting in Senator 
Watson's office when he said that. 

Gentlemen, as I said, I have nothing against him 
personally. And I have no knock on him personally. 

I just say this is the wrong job for him. He does 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



9 
not have the sensitivity. 

Maybe he responds to Dan McCorquodale . He does not 
respond to Diane Watson. He does not respond to Leroy Greene or 
to Bill Greene. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Not wanting to diminish your 
testimony, which is very important to me, Senator, but Senator 
Watson indicated she was in support. 

SENATOR BILL GREENE: Of him? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

SENATOR BILL GREENE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. 
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, Mr. President. 

Have the Sergeant go and bring her down here right 



now. 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: She's out of town. 
SENATOR BILL GREENE: No, no. That's not true. 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I actually called to ask. 
SENATOR BILL GREENE: That's no true. That is not 



true. 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



The only way I would believe that is, she would have 
i to say that herself. I cannot believe that she would be that 
kind of turncoat. 

You see, I — you see, we still got a hall full of 
people to testify in this matter. You say you have a lot of 
people. 

I mean, I can fill this Capitol with people that will 
tell you about that Licensing bureau, about that Licensing 
agency. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



23 
24 

25 

I! 

26 

27 
28 I 



10 

Once again, now, Mr. Gould himself did not do it. 
Mr. Gould wasn't there. I grant you that. 

But I called him to tell him about the problem, to 
ask him to look into it. He knows the nature of the problem. 
And he tells me no. And I take an oath of office. 

What is going to happen with one of my constituents? 
What would happen with one of your constituents? He'd probably 
tell them to go to hell. 

Look, we've got professionals. We've got judges. 
We've got probation people. We've got doctors. We've got 
lawyers that will testify to all of the information that we have 
:put before you. There's a doctor here right now, Dr. Lippman, 
that will testify this is not something that I just drummed up. 

My staff and I have spent months digging into this. 

Number one, there's discrimination in the Licensing agency. 

| 
Fine. If he doesn't have guts enough to take care of that, 

jfine; okay. That was brought to their attention. All right? 

jiFine. 

This man — this man does not have the sensitivity. 
He doesn't have the depth of understanding. He definitely 
doesn't have good public relations with Members of the 
Legislature, at least not this one. 

I mean, I would have never done that. I would have 
— I told him in my office, I said, "Sir, I mean, you could have 
faked it a little bit. You didn't just have to come out and say 
no. " 

That says to me he didn't care. He really didn't 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



11 
care. He just flat-out right — now, as I said now, I give him 
credit for being honest. I'll give him credit for being 
straightforward. I'll give him credit for that. 

But this man — Members, I appeal to you. Ask the 
Governor to appoint him to something else. I'm not opposed to 
him. This is the wrong job for him. Ask the Governor. He has 
no background in this area. He has no training. He has no 
prior knowledge in this area. 

The man — he didn't even work in this area when he 
was in the Department of Finance. The man has no personal 
jjacquaintance with this. He's the wrong person to appoint to 
this position, and I appeal to you to get — Mr. Pro Tern, you 
iget together with the Governor and say — see if you can't 
appointment him to something else; I'll support that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Any questions? 

Senator Leroy Greene. 

SENATOR LEROY GREENE: Just, Senator, to report 
briefly that it ' s my understanding that Diane does support the 
appointment. And I've had a meeting or two with the proposed 
Director, and I don't have any argument with the Agency at this 
point in time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR BILL GREENE: The power of the Governor. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Pardon? 

SENATOR BILL GREENE: The power of the Governor. He 
called you, and you called him, and now this is all just fine. 



3 



4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

iy 

20 
21 






23 
24 
2S 
26 

27 
28 



12 

I 

i 

SENATOR LEROY GREENE: If this represents the power 
of the Governor, I request that I be delivered my share. 

Thank you . 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any other opposition? 

Are there people here to testify in regards to the 
Ward Valley situation? Yes, come up one by one, the front row 
first. 

Dr. Lake, I understand Dr. Lake has a flight to 
catch. We'll let Dr. Lake come first. 

And Dr. Coye, if you would like to come up. 
Sergeant, get Dr. Coye a chair. 

DR. LAKE: First, Senators, let me say I'm — my name 

i, 
is Jim Lake. I'm a professor of molecular biology at UCLA. I'm 

also a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science. I'm also a Fellow of Churchill College in Cambridge. 

The reason I -- then let me thank Senator Petris for 
the opportunity to be here, the invitation, and Senator Roberti, 
and the rest of the Senate Rules Committee for the permission 
and making it possible for me to testify. 

I thought it would be helpful today for you to hear 
from a person involved in molecular biology research and medical 
research about the need for the Ward Valley nuclear dump, 
because I'm opposed to the dump. And the nuclear industry has 
been representing that the molecular biology community needs 
this dump in the interest of doing their research. 

I am here because I'm tired of the nuclear industry 



13 

l 

hiding behind the lab jackets of molecular biologists and the 
2 

'medical community. 

3 .! 

Molecular biology doesn't need this dump. There are 

4 

now new breakthroughs that Mr. Gould has an obligation to 

5 

investigate, and I'd like to tell you a little bit about them 

6 

[and take a few minutes to tell you more or less what my daily 



7 
8 
9 

10 
II 

12 



13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



life is, and what the research part of it is that involves 
working with — with radionucleotides [sic]. 

Typically, you know, there's been a molecular — a 
revolution in molecular biology, and that involves sequencing 
DNA. Now, it sounds — you've heard of on-site storage, and 
these sorts of things. On-site storage for a molecular 
biologist means having a refrigerator in the lab. It means 
having some -- a container which is about the size of a shoe 
box. So, I want to get across to you that we use very small 
amounts of chemicals. 

Typically, we would take some chemicals out in the 
morning, put them in an ice bucket, in a little thing that we 
call a bullet, and then we would take out fractions of a drop to 
add to reaction mixtures. We do this during the day, and then 
return the chemicals at the end of the evening. 

Radioactive chemicals decay with certain rates called 
half lives. And for example, if one has a particular — if one 
has P-32, it decays to half the amount that you've initially 
started with in 15 days. That means, if you start out with a 
certain amount, probably you've lost half the radioactivity 
before you've finished -- before you've really gotten into much 



13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2« 



14 
i 
of your experiments. 

Because these things typically decay so fast, that 

I 
means that we, by leaving the materials in our refrigerator on 

the sites for a matter of a month or two more, we could reduce 

very much the amount of waste that we have to handle. 

So, that's the first thing, on-site storage. 

And the last thing I want to tell you is that there 
[are very big changes that are occurring in molecular biology. 
Typically, sequencing has been done with radioactivity. That's 
turning out to be less and less. There are automated 
synthesizers which use fluorescent dyes all -- and these simply 
do the business for you. And they aren't used because — as a 
replacement for radioactivity, but they're used because they're 
better. 

So, another source of radioactive non-use turns out 
to be this firefly enzyme, lucif erase. We do a lot of our 
experiments now by emitting light so we can expose radioactive 
films that we didn't use to use. 

So, let me just end there. I wanted to -- I'm very 
appreciative of the time you've taken. I can see by this big 
crowd you're going to have a long day, but I do want to thank 
you. 

I think it's very important, however, that we have 
some sort of adjudicatory hearing. And I would certainly like 
to see these confirmations held up until we have the opportunity 
to look at these new changes that are happening in molecular 
biology, and see how these affect the waste dump. 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

y 

10 

ii 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
!8 
19 
20 
21 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



15 
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

DR. LAKE: And you want to ask any questions — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris has questions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think we need a little more 
information as to why you're opposed to the dump. We've had a 
lot of information, pro and con. 

Is it a question of not having that kind of a dump 
anywhere in California? Most people don't want it. Is it the 

i 

particular site that has defects? We could start with that. 

DR. LAKE: That's a wonderful question, and that goes 
right to the heart of the whole issue. 

As I see it, the entire university and the entire 
medical community contributes about 35 curies. That's just — a 
curie is like a calorie, or something, whatever. It's a 
measurement of -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Radioactive calorie. 

DR. LAKE: Radioactive calorie, right. 

Now, the state — the dump is proposed to work for 
something like 35,000 calories or curies. And the point is that 
the major argument, one major argument, the one that I want to 
address, is, if we don't have this dump, we'll drive out medical 
molecular research from the state. 

My argument is, nonsense. We just have to leave the 
wastes in our labs for a few more months with these short half 
lives, and we can have -- we can get rid of essentially the 
radioactivity certainly for those things that have short half 



16 

lives . 
2 

And we're sort of having a little, tiny element drive 

3 

this big monster which has this potential of very large 
4 

financial — you know, puts the state in big trouble 
5 

financially, potentially. 
6 

So, I don't want to see this part of it drive it. If 

7 

there are other reasons for you wanting to do it, then that's 
8 

your decision. But I see this as not making sense. 



9* 

10 

11 

12 
13 
14 



SENATOR PETRIS: One of the criticisms I've heard is 
that they have an arbitrary range of a hundred feet below the 
(deposit level and feel that gives an adequate cushion to prevent 
leakage down into the water. 

One of the answers given by Mr. Gould is that some of 
the material we're talking about doesn't leak at all. It moves 



15 

'upward instead of downward, which was startling to me. I don't 

16 

know a scientific explanation for that. I believe it, and I 

17 

don't have reason to doubt that. But it was strange that here 
is 

are people saying that a hundred feet isn't enough. There's no 
19 || 

testing done below the hundred foot level. There may well be 



20 



23 
24 
2.s 

26 

27 
28 



leakage that has gone that far, and there's a genuine fear that 
that may be the case, but there was no independent study done by 
the Agency to cover that area. One of the answers is, well, it 
really doesn't go down; it goes up. 

Perhaps you can comment on that. 

DR. LAKE: I think probably that's not my area of 
expertise, but sounds like good common sense, what you've said. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It didn't sound like common sense to 



3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



17 

me, and that's why I asked. 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. LAKE: Oh, it didn't. Well, okay, let me say 
i what I heard you saying. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We have a liquid moving upward 
instead of downward. 

DR. LAKE: Oh, no. I meant that it sounded like 
common sense for you to question that; pardon me. Because I 
jthink there are -- first, you ask all the questions. And the 
part -- first question you ask is do we need it. And if we 
need it, then what are the liabilities. And the liabilities are 

enormous. You have to ask the specialists, and I would get 

I 
outside my field to comment except rather in a personal level. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All right. 

I have another question relating to a comment you 
made regarding an adjudicatory hearing. We've had others write 
in and demand it. 

The answer is, well, they've had numerous hearings 
over a period of a couple of years, 24 or 27 at one period of 
time, including some CEQA hearings. 

Does the difference of an adjudicatory hearing, which 
is official and has an administrative judge, and a CEQA hearing 
have to do just with getting something on the official record? 
Or is it getting a quasi- judicial decision out of it? 

I'm not clear as to why CEQA proceedings, which are 
used in a lot of other environmental areas, are not adequate for 
this particular case. 



I 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

II 



ii 
P 



18 

DR. LAKE: I think that's — that's, again, a very 
good question. I'm just not the person to answer that. 

But I do know there are going to be other people who 
will address just that point. One second. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'll reserve that. Fine. 

I have a last question. 

DR. LAKE: Okay. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you give us a thumb-nail sketch 
of what molecular biology is? I guess they developed the DNA 
theory. 

DR. LAKE: I'll be glad to. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it the study of the physical 



13 

make-up of molecules? 

DR. LAKE: Okay. This is a — that's — I'd love to 
15 

get the chance to answer this. 

16 

[Laughter. ] 



17 



18 
19 
20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
2b 

27 
28 



DR. LAKE: This is a good one, because we've had -- 
in molecular biology, we've had an absolute revolution in the 
last ten years. We all have DNA in our bodies that tells us 
what to do, tells our cells what to do, how we work, how we 
don't get so old, whether we develop cancer, whether we don't. 
I All of these things are controlled by DNA. 

We now have the ability to take out the DNA of a 
person's cells. Just enough that a single tip end of a piece of 
hair, and you can identify the DNA. You can see from the 
sequences what ' s happening with the — what the structure is . 
You read it just like a computer code, but this computer code 



19 

l 



j 

- 



controls what we are genetically and who we are. 

It's revolution. It's been made possible by being 
able to sequence DNA, and now it's also causing enormous — it 

4 

has enormous potential for good in medicine. 



5 
6 
7 
8 
9 



10 
II 

12 
13 
14 
15 

16 

17 



Now, what I'm saying is — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is this reliable? 

DR. LAKE: I think it's reliable. It's very 
reliable; it's very — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it standardized so that any 
person in that field who is competent will make the same 
^analysis? 

DR. LAKE: Exactly the same analysis. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We have so many other situations 
iwhere you send samples to three different labs, and you get 
totally different reports back from each lab. 

That would not occur under this system? 

DR. LAKE: With these analyses, it depends, like 



IX 
19 



everything else in life, it depends upon who performs the 



20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2S 



experiments. But if you have competent people, almost 

1 
everybody, assuming competent people, everybody gets exactly the 

same answer as far as sequencing genes is concerned. 

It promises enormous revolutions. These revolutions, 
however, are being easier and easier to do now, not with 
radioactivity, but with fluorescent dyes, for example, for the 
sequencing. And for the bio assays, it's getting much better to 
use — to use different types of non-radioactive tags. 

And I think what that's going to do is even further 



2 
3 

4 

6 | 



7 

X 

9 

10 

II 
12 
13 

14 
IS 

16 
17 
IX 
19 

20 
21 

22 
23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
2H 



20 

reduce the need for the Ward Valley site, which I think even at 
present day usage doesn't exist for medical and research things. 
I think it ' s going to even further reduce the input from medical 
and biological sources into that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: If you had no Ward Valley, and you 
had no site at all, you would take care of whatever problem 
there is in the research area by continuing to do what you're 
doing now, and that's preserving the substance in your 
| refrigerator and reducing the half life as much as you can. 

DR. LAKE: Yes, until it can be disposed of in normal 
landfills. And that's true for the most commonly used 
sequencing sorts of things, for S-35 and for P-32. Other things 
have — require different solutions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: As I understand it, the medical 
research is part of the reason, but there are a lot of other 
emphases. There's a lot of emphasis on federal legislation on 
the need for regional dumps, on California's commitment to 
neighboring states, and so forth. 

You haven't gotten into that part of it, I guess? 

DR. LAKE: I know about those, but they're much 
better for other people to talk about them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Okay, thanks very much. 

DR. LAKE: One again, thank all of you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next witness. 

MR. HIRSCH: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
my name is Daniel Hirsch. I am the former Director of the Adlai 
Stevenson Program on Nuclear Policy at U.C. Santa Cruz. I 



21 

I 



■> 



currently work with a public policy group in Los Angeles and 



.chair a technical panel that's attempted to look at some of the 

3 l( 

outstanding scientific questions that remain about Ward Valley. 

4 

jjThat panel included: Dr. Robert Cornog, who was the 
5 

co-discoverer of the radioactive substance tritium; Professor 

6 

James Wharf, who was head of two of the Manhattan Project's New 
7 

Chemistry Division, and several others. 



8 

9 

10 

II 
12 
13 
14 
15 



16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 



I say that because I want you to understand that 
there's great concern in the scientific community about the 
adequacy of the job that has been performed to date by the 
Department of Health Services and the Health and Welfare Agency 
regarding the safety of this site. 

We have had a number of difficulties in being able to 
make a determinate of the safety. One problem has been that 
these agencies have refused to release the information that is 
necessary for independent review. In particular, despite 
]l repeated requests, that there be a detailing of the waste stream 
[that is to go to Ward Valley. 

These agencies continue to refuse to do so, and only 
when Congressman George Miller, Chairman of the House Interior 
Committee, made a formal request did these agencies release the 
data, long after the draft and final Environmental Impact 
Reports were released and the comment period had closed. 

Those data that were suppressed were eye-opening. 
They disclosed that more than half of the radioactive waste in 
this state at present, and 99 percent of the radioactive waste 
that they projected for the dump would come from just two 



I 



22 

companies. That we were to build this dump site in large 
2 

measure for two companies. 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 

25 
26 

in 

28 



When we found out who these companies were, we 
discovered that the state had failed to examine the alternative 
requiring these two companies to recapture the material that 
they had been dumping, this radioactive substance, tritium, to 
recapture and re-use it instead of dumping it. It's an 
absolutely massive quantity of material that the state is 
proposing to dump in unlined trenches above a pristine aquifer 
20 miles from the Colorado River. 

This material, tritium, is the most mobile of all the 
radionuclides, and yet the contractor did not do an analysis of 

what would happen if that material leaked because its 

I 

■assumption, which the state has endorsed, that it would take 
thousands of years for radioactive material to migrate 600 feet 
to groundwater. The basis for that is the misconception on the 

'part of the two individuals next to me that radioactive 
migration at the site is upward. 

You have heard this. It's in the letter to you, 
Senator Petris . It's been repeated numerous times. It's based 
on a scientifically childish assessment that has been done by 
taking a look at a year's amount of evaporation at Ward Valley, 
comparing it with a year's precipitation. And by knowing that 
there's more evaporation potential at the site over a year than 
rainfall, assuming everything goes up. 

But as we've seen just in the last few weeks with the 
storms we've had, rain occurs during the winter. Evaporation is 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

21) 

21 

2~> 

23 
24 
25 

2d 

27 



23 

primarily when it's hot and dry in the summer. We do get 
periods where there's substantial storms and puddling, and 
jmaterial does go downward. 

Now, this theory that it would take thousands of 
years for the material to migrate to the groundwater is the 
entire basis of the state's claim that the site would be safe. 
JAnd yet, they suppressed information, solid data, that indicated 
that that assumption was not true. There were measurements 
taken at the site that were not included in the draft 
Environmental Impact Statements, and only because of the 
Ivigilance of the federal EPA and the Colorado River Branch of 
the State Water Quality Board was the state forced to at least 
include reference to these measurements. 

These are measurements, Senator Petris, that you 
.referred to, which is the finding that radioactive material has 
already migrated at the site as far down as they took 
measurements, which was 100 feet beneath the surface. This 
material is tritium, which again is the material that's the 
prime isotope that they're intending to dump at the site. 
Tritium occurs in small quantities in rainfall, primarily from 
fallout. 

If that rain fallout has been able to get from the 
surface of that dump site down a hundred feet, it has to have 
done so in less than 35 years. A couple of reasons, the 
simplest of which is that we didn't create tritium fallout 
longer than 35 years ago. The first H-Bomb test was in 1954. 

Even if it is occurring from the tiny amount that's 



2 
3 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 
natural, the concentrations that are being found are such that 
it would, again, have had to take 35 years. 

So, the State Water Quality Board and the EPA have 
been very concerned about the DHS claim of thousands of years ' 
migration and safety of the site based on that claim. 

Now, in the letter to you and a similar letter to 
Congressman Miller, Mr. Gould has made the claim that this 
tritium finding and the groundwater model, which would appear to 
contradict, have been independently reviewed by a blue ribbon 
panel appointed by the state, which included representatives of 
EPA, the Water Quality Board, and some independent scientists. 

I have a statement which I was asked to deliver to 
you — it's in the package that you have before you — by Dr. 
William Bianchi, who served on that very panel. It claims that 
the statements made by Mr. Gould in his letter to Congressman 
Miller, which are the same statements he made to you, are 
incorrect or misleading at best. That the committee that was 
established that he served on, and is referred to by Mr. Gould, 
was steered away from dealing with the tritium finding and the 
question of the validity of the site and of the migration 
models . 

Many members on that panel were extremely concerned 
that these measurements indicated that the site might not be 
safe, and that the migration model was incorrect. Dr. Bianchi 
says that the committee steered away from dealing with that 
issue; told, in essence, that they were only permitted to go 
ahead and try to come up with a model — a system for monitoring 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 

12 I 

,3 i 



14 
15 

16 

17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



25 
the site once it begins operation. But that the suitability of 
the site was an established fact, and that they were not to deal 
with that matter. 

I have checked that with several other members of the 
panel who indicated likewise that in no way did that panel 
jendorse the model of long migration time. In no way did they 
say that this tritium finding is not a serious concern, raising 
serious questions. And in no way would they support the state's 
position of refusing to take measurements beneath the hundred 
foot level. 

Let me explain what that means, basically. They went 
down as far as a hundred feet. They find tritium has already 
migrated in a few decades, perhaps years. These two individuals 
are refusing to take additional measurements to see if migration 
has gone beneath the hundred feet . They say that their model 
says it can't possible happen, and I must remind you that their 
model said it couldn't have happened a hundred feet to begin 
with. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, I don't think either one of 
these two is a nuclear scientist or molecular biologist, and so 
forth. They're being advised by somebody in the Department or 
out 

Was there an opportunity for a minority report when 
they reported back to the Agency after having studied the Ward 
Valley thing? 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

" I 

24 

I 
25 

26 

27 
28 



26 

MR. HIRSCH: Indeed, Dr. Bianchi, in the very 
'documents referenced in this material, in the letter that was 
sent to you, did dissent, saying that the committee had been 
steered away from dealing with the implications of this finding. 

But I should tell you that there wasn't a minority 
report possible, because they were told all they were supposed 
to deal with was devising a monitoring system for once you start 
dumping, not whether it's safe to dump to begin with. 

Dr. Schulz, who served on the panel, said in every 
ijcase where tritium has been examined in dump sites elsewhere, 
jjtritium has been found to migrate. All the monitoring system 
Iwill do at Ward Valley is tell us what we already know in 
{advance, which is that tritium will migrate. 

The question here is whether it will migrate fast 
enough to contaminate a huge aquifer and, potentially, the 
Colorado. And the Department's refusing to find out. 

You're implying a second question, which is, I think, 
very important. You're right that they're not physicists, 
they're not technically trained in some of these areas. 

The way you avoid, therefore, mistakes made by 
decision makers who do not have the technical expertise is 
precisely by what in the academic world we would call a science 
court, what in the nuclear area is an adjudicatory hearing. I 
have been in three of those. 

And that is the mechanism whereby these scientific 
disputes are resolved. Not by decision makers who do not have 
the background, but by bringing up the experts from one side and 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 

^7 
28 



27 
cross-examining them, and bringing up Dr. Cornog, Dr. Wharf, the 
other experts on the other side and having them rebut, and 
permitting them access through discovery for the documents that 
these agencies have suppressed to date. 

And again, I don't want to convince you whether Ward 
Valley is right or wrong. My testimony here today is whether 
these individuals have acted properly in trying to make a 
decision that is irreversible and could be irreversibly very 
dangerous . 

And the two particular instances -- and I'm going to 
tell you one last one as well -- of their behavior raise serious 
questions to me about that conduct. A, they will not find out 
whether it's gone beneath a hundred feet. B, they will not 
permit an adjudicatory hearing where experts can testify, not 
these public meetings where you get five minutes, then you're 
cut off. But a situation before administrative judges with 
technical training, procedures, findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, rebuttal, discovery, and the facts will out. 

Those two things indicate to me a fear of finding out 
whether the safe is site [site] -- site is safe. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What I was driving at was not to 
discredit them for not being scientists, but to find out who are 
the scientists that are urging them to steer away from the 
issue. 

Is that a scientific trajectory, or — 

MR. HIRSCH: Political. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — is that a political agenda in 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

X 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
.7 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 ! 

25 

26 

27 

28 



28 
which they've been told, "Stay out of this." 

Now, we've had that in other agencies. That comes up 
from time to time. 

MR. HIRSCH: It's my impression that these decisions 
are being made on a political rather than a scientific basis by 
these agencies, and let me give the third example, if I may. 

In the letter to you, Senator Petris, and in the 
meeting that was held on Monday, the two individuals who sit 
next to me at this table admitted to you and to us that they 
have held meetings with advocates of the dump site, including 
the applicant in this contested proceeding, without a transcript 
or minutes being kept, and without the other parties to the 
proceeding being present. 

That is an ex parte, off the record meeting by a 
decision maker with an applicant for a license in the contested 
proceeding. 

The state statute under which the licensing matter is 
to be conducted is a section of the Health and Safety Code which 
requires that upon request, there shall be a hearing on the 
record — I'm quoting -- and that anyone who so requests shall 
be made a party. The state claims to have granted those 
requests, and yet, they are holding off the record meetings with 
the applicant without the other parties notified or present. 

Now, this is not a minor procedure — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 

At this point, is the company an applicant or — 

MR. HIRSCH: Yes. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
I! 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

i 
23 

24 

2? 

26 

27 
28 



29 
SENATOR PETRIS: — or have they been accepted? 
MR. HIRSCH: No. 

\ 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought they were appointed 
already. 

MR. HIRSCH: They are the licensee designee. And to 
|move from licensee designee to licensee, they must receive a 
license in a pending licensing proceeding that's currently 
ongoing. There's an application by U.S. Ecology pending before 
these two individuals. They will have to rule on it whether 
these two — whether this company meets the minimum standards 
necessary. And as you know, there's a great deal of question 
about their past behavior in other states. 

But no, there's a pending licensing proceeding, 
contested, in which there are other parties. The statute 
requires that the information the decision makers make their 
judgments on be entirely on the record, with the other parties 
having an opportunity to respond. 

This is not a procedural nicety or minor legal 
question. We're talking wastes that have half lives of 24,000 
years, some of the wastes. They're going to be there for a 
very, very long time. Much of this material is nuclear 
power plant waste, in addition to the tritium I described. 

If these two individuals make a mistake by thinking 
that water migrates up at the site rather than down, or some 
other error like that, because there is no adjudicatory hearing 
to hear the other side, and because they got off the record 
information that the other parties were not able respond to, 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 
7 

8 | 

9 >' 
10 

II 

13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 

20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



30 
then a decision that could end up polluting groundwater 
potentially, Colorado River potentially, large numbers of 
people's drinking water, could be made. 

I think that the procedures by which these 
individuals have engaged violate the law, violate the normal 
procedures required, but most importantly, violate the kind of 
procedures that should be followed by responsible officials on a 
matter of great — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How close is the site to the 
Colorado River? 

MR. HIRSCH: Twenty miles from the Colorado River. 
The United States Geologic Survey says that this is an open 
'basin that drains to the Colorado and the two basins to the 
north that appear to be connected to the Ward Valley basin that 
are directly connected to the Colorado. 

By the way, the potential impact on the Colorado has 
not been examined at all in the Environmental Impact Statement. 
That issue's out; zero. No consideration. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has that been requested? 

MR. HIRSCH: I filed a letter -- it's been requested 
many times. I filed on Monday with these two individuals a 
request based on new information, which I presented to you s 
well . 

Dr. Coye said they were always open to new evidence. 
We ask that they now re-open the Environmental Impact Statement 
to consider, among other things, the connections with the 
Colorado, the tritium findings, the potential for tritium 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

->-> 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



31 

I 
recovery. 

I asked that they reconsider their position on 
adjudicatory hearings, that they be willing to make those 
further measurements beneath the hundred feet, and that they 
require these two companies to recapture the tritium instead of 
dump it . 

I asked for an answer by noon today so that I could 
inform you whether there ' d been a satisfactory response, and if 
there was to be no response in this time, to be told when we 
could expect a response so that you would know if you would be 
able to have it in time to make your decision. 

I received not any word at all by noon today. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's also a dispute as to whether 

the adjudicatory hearing is required by law. 

I think as the scientists see it, it's not a matter 
ji 
of legal compulsion -- 

MR. HIRSCH: But I'd like to answer the legal 

question, if I may also. 
II 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand that the lead agency, 

the feds, do give a hearing. 

MR. HIRSCH: If — a radioactive dump site in most 
any other state would have an adjudicatory hearing. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission requires that. And I know what those 
procedures would be, and they are not the best in the world, but 
they are much better than what the state has given. 

The State of California is what's called an agreement 
state. The state signed an agreement in the early 1960s to take 



1 

2 

3 I 
4 



5 

6 
7 
X 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
2b 
27 
28 



32 

over as a surrogate for the feds most radioactive regulations in 
the state. And the law under which that was done requires that 
the state's regulations be compatible with the federal 
regulations, and the agreement that the state signed with the 
feds promised that their regulations would be compatible, that 
they would continually update them to make them compatible. 

I understand by my colleagues at the table that they 

i 

'say NRC says, well, we really don't care what the law says; you 

I 

don't have to make them compatible. 

The law says the regulations must be compatible, and 
the state has failed to even issue any regulations as to the 
conduct of licensing proceedings for nuclear materials. 

I requested them. I asked where can I find them in 

the codes, state regulations. Was basically told they do not 

exist, and then someone in their office went into a back room 

and typed up procedures for this particular hearing where we get 

five minutes. And I'm sure you know that the Administrative 

Procedure Act requires notice and comment, and opportunity for 

j 

public input in those regulations. 

So, it ' s a kind of — how do I say it — well, in all 

the years I've dealt with nuclear issues, I've found one 

particular intriguing fact: that nuclear materials are not 

merely very toxic to the human body, but they're toxic to the 

body politic. Nuclear matters seem to corrode democratic 

processes, and I believe that this particular situation of Ward 

Valley is proof positive that the democratic process has been 

corroded in the Department of Health Services and the Health and 



I 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 



12 I! 



13 
14 
15 

lft 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

"IT 

23 
24 
25 
2h 

27 
2S 



33 
Welfare Agency. 

The danger is that an extremely unsafe project could 
go forward without the facts having been found out. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Why is this happening? 

MR. HIRSCH: I believe it's the power of money. I 

believe that we are seeing what academics like to refer to as 

captured agencies: regulatory agencies captured by the entity 

they are to regulate. It is easier to give campaign 

! contributions to make sure that a regulatory agency doesn't 

really come down hard on you than it is to clean up your act and 
fl 
make sure you don ' t violate rules . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't think — maybe I'm wrong, 
but I don't think Mr. Gould or Dr. Coye checked the campaign 
contributions . 

Now, are you saying the Governor? 

MR. HIRSCH: I would say the contributions to the 
Governor are made in large measure based on what industry feels 
is his view about regulation, and that when he then — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You're not saying anything 
specific, but you're saying a general attitude? 

MR. HIRSCH: An attitude. And when he then picks 
nominees for regulatory agencies, he picks people who have that 
attitude towards regulation. 

You asked an opinion. It's the only explanation I 
can have. I can describe the behavior. The reason for the 
behavior, maybe someone else can determine. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I thought you might give what 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



34 
official explanation's been given, and then take it apart, but 
we'll get to that. 

They have responded as to why, and they will today. 
Perhaps you can rebut it later. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris , while we're at it, 
and while it's on my mind, maybe Mr. Gould and Dr. Coye can join 
the point -- why can't there be an adjudicatory hearing in this 
area and set everybody's mind at ease as to the safety of the 
Ward Valley site? 

MR. GOULD: Senator, in looking at the process that 
the state used, we used the CEQA process, which at the time the 
decision was made to use that process, it was one which was both 
appropriate, and we felt that it was the best understanding 
within California about the mechanisms and the processes for 
public input. 

As was described earlier, there were a number of 
specific public hearings. In addition to that, a number of 
public meetings. And there were hundreds if not a thousand 
copies of the EIR — I'm trying to remember the exact number 
that were sent out to get additional public input. 

So, I think we've tried to be very forthright in 
getting information regarding the site, and taking this as a 
very deliberate process, because we don't take this siting 
|lightly, either. It's something that we've tried to be 
deliberate about, and very careful about. 

And so, we think that we have used a mechanism that 
was appropriate and that did provide an opportunity for public 



35 

1 

input . 

2 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You're saying we followed the CEQA 

iprocess . 

4 ! 

MR. HIRSCH: One quick response. 

5 



6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



I believe a mistake has been made before by these 
individuals . 

The siting of the Ward Valley site is being done 

i 

under two laws: CEQA and the Health and Safety Code. The 
[Health and Safety Code, carrying out the Atomic Energy Act as 
the surrogate in the state, as the agreement state. 

Under CEQA you don't have to have adjudicatory 
hearings . Under the Atomic Energy Act and the Health and Safety 
Code you do . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You're saying that that aspect of 
the law was not adhered to? 

MR. HIRSCH: That's quite right. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Gould, do you have a response 
to that? 

MR. GOULD: Well, that is something that our 



attorneys looked at very closely, and also, I think there was 

2! 

also a suit filed by some members in opposition to the process. 

22 

And the courts confirmed that the process that we had was 
23 

appropriate — 

24 

MR. HIRSCH: Excuse me 



25 
26 

27 
2S 



I don't believe -- I really believe you shouldn't 
misstate things. 

There was no finding by that court. There has been 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 
27 

28 



36 
no ruling by that court. That suit was withdrawn. 

Please be accurate if you make such statements. 

MR. GOULD: I'm speaking to my understanding. 

I don't know the specific finding of the court. I do 
know that there was no change in the determination of the court 
Jin terms of the process used by the state, which is the CEQA 
;process . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I guess there is disagreement. 

Senator Petris, do you have any other questions? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have a lot of them, but the 
question is the appropriate timing, when to go into them. And 
there are other witnesses. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: It's 3:00 o'clock, so why don't we 
break for ten minutes . 

MR. HIRSCH: If I could make one last — I do believe 
that this issue of ex parte meetings is one that merits your 
concern, and I do believe that you should perhaps consider 
holding up your judgment until there's been a response to the 
request that I made, to which I've had no response. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Were you on this panel? 

MR. HIRSCH: Which panel? 

SENATOR PETRIS: The Ward panel? 

MR. HIRSCH: The DHS panel? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. HIRSCH: No, but a colleague who was on my panel 
was, and that's the statement you have from him, Dr. Bianchi ' s 
statement . 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



37 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is this Committee to Bridge the Gap 

your panel? 
II 

MR. HIRSCH: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're Dr. Hirsch? 

MR. HIRSCH: Mr. Hirsch, yes. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll break for ten minutes. 
[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll return to the confirmation 
of Russell Gould, Secretary of Health and Welfare Agency. 

We were hearing witnesses in opposition, specifically 
witnesses concerned with the Ward Valley nuclear waste site. 

Is there someone else who would like to come forward? 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: Thank you, Senators. 

It's an honor to be here today. And I must say, I'm 
very excited. It's the first time that I've testified in 
Sacramento. 

I'm Dana Gluckstein, President of a new organization, 
Americans for a Safe Future. I'm also a member of the Hollywood 
Women's Political Committee. 

I'm here before you today representing thousands of 
citizens who have grave concerns as to how our California 
Department of Health Services has handled the licensing of the 
proposed Ward Valley nuclear waste dump. 

Now, I would like to say, especially to Molly Coye 
and to Russell Gould, that this is not a personal adversarial 
sort of thing, but this is really a conflict in terms of how 
this has been handled. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 

15 |! 
16 

17 
IS 

19 

i 1 
i ! 
20 

21 

i! 

23 
24 



38 

And for me, the first time being involved in our 
political process, I have great hopes that democracy will work. 
I went to Stanford. I was raised in a conservative Republican 
home. My parents live in Beverly Hills and have a condominium, 
Senator Beverly, in Redondo Beach, and — 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You're covering all the bases. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: I don't know, is Stanford part of 
your district? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: And you could be moving to Carmel 
soon. 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: And I could be moving to Carmel 
soon, right. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: And I will say that in May of last 
year, I was on holiday up in one of my favorite places in the 
state, Stinson Beach. I used to live up there. And was very 
upset to hear that California is on the fast track to host the 
nation's first radioactive waste dump, the first commercial dump 
in 20 years. 

Now, I will say I will not purport that I'm a nuclear 
expert, but in the last few years I've been learning a lot about 
the condition of the nuclear crisis in the world. Mostly 

25 

because I was invited several years ago to the Film Academy in 

26 

Moscow and was very honored to see the first documentaries that 

27 

came out about Chernobyl. It was very horrifying. It was 

2X 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

X 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
2b 

27 
2S 



39 

devastating to see these young men in cleanup suits, white 

cotton cleanup suits, going into the core of the reactor to help 

j 
the world, not realizing that they were giving their lives. 

So, I say this onJy to say that I am not an 
anti-nuclear radical activist, whatever the media likes to 
label, but I represent a constituency, tens of thousands of 
people, in California that are concerned. Concerned about 
fiscal liability, concerned about health and environmental 
issues . 

What we are asking here today is only that the 
confirmations be delayed of Mr. Gould and Ms. Coye only until a 
full, unbiased adjudicatory publicly disclosed hearing occurs so 
that all information can be really laid out on the table. I've 
been working on this issue for nine months, and as you heard 
from Dan Hirsch and you will hear from other experts, there are 
so many things that just common sense will tell you our state 
should know about. 

There are a couple other things that I would like to 
say. Just as thousands of women were not told the truth by Dow 
Corning about the potential for silicone rupturing in their 
ijbodies, I am worried that Calif ornians have not been told the 
whole truth about Ward Valley. Our DHS tells us that the 
proposed storage methods are state of the art and are 
practically leak-proof. What we are not told is that if there 
is an accident, we, the taxpayers of California, will be liable 
for the damages, not U.S. Ecology, the dump contractor. 

Whenever I speak to friends, my father — who's a 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

X 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 



40 
staunch Republican — this is shocking information. Why is it 
that the taxpayers are liable for the nuclear waste? 

Our DHS has also failed to disclose the fact that 
U.S. Ecology has an abysmal track record of faulty design and 
mismanagement. U.S. Ecology was denied an operating license by 
the State of North Carolina, and was our state's fourth and last 
choice to build and operate this dump. The other three included 
Westinghouse denied, and they denied the state's offer. I find 

Ithis most unusual, and I would like to understand why they were 

I 

not interested in running this dump. 

We also have been told by the DHS that the waste 
purported for Ward Valley is low level medical wastes, such as 
booties and gloves. Well, as a lay person, for me, that sounds 
like it should be low debt -- low danger. But one might 
erroneously believe that this is low danger because there is no 
mention of the highly carcinogenic nuclear power plant and 
industrial wastes that will travel along our rail and highways 
to Ward Valley, not only throughout California, but across the 
entire country to come to Ward Valley. 

Our very own State Controller, Gray Davis, and our 
Lieutenant Governor, Leo McCarthy, have warned us that licensing 
Ward Valley is a potential fiscal nightmare for our state. 

It is my understanding, even though I was an art 
major, and I'm in the film industry, that our state is already 
experiencing the worst budget deficit in history. Seventeen 
states, including California, have just filed suit against the 
federal government on the constitutionality of the mandate that 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I! 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

■J *) 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



41 
has made states and their taxpayers financially responsible for 
nuclear waste. 

Should not the DHS be concerned with these issues? 
Finally sitting face-to-face with both of you, I know that you 
are common sense people, that you would understand this. Why 
should we race blinding ahead the next few months to license and 
begin construction on this dump when the whole constitutionality 
question has not even been answered? Why should California be 
Ithe first to have a dump? We all know that if that's true, all 
the other states will throw up their hands and say, "We don't 
need a dump. California was silly enough to do it for us." 

So, in conclusion, I urge you to delay the 
confirmation of Secretary Gould and Department of Health 
Services Chief Coye only until adjudicatory hearings have been 
called for and all the facts are out in the open. This is 
something that for months, numerous citizens' groups have tried 
to sit down to the table to speak face-to-face. This is not 
adversarial. This is about the truth. 

I believe in the truth. I was raised to believe that 
our system of government worked, and I hope that we will find 
that this is true. And I will carry this message back to the 
media in Los Angeles, across the state, and across the country. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Senator Mello has a question. 

SENATOR MELLO: I just went over — the appointee 
process has one year to get confirmed or they're out. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

II 

22 l| 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 
28 



42 

The delaying that you're asking for, his last day, 
one-year date, is up April 14th, but that's Easter week. So the 
last effective date for us to take action would be April 9th. 

We usually have the appointee's confirmation go to 
the Senate Floor, stay there two weeks. So, the Rules Committee 
action will actually have to be made by the 25th of March, which 
is next week. 

So what I want to ask Mr. Gould at this point, 
because in talking to you and others here, and at least Senator 
Petris ' s point is, I think if you make a commitment to hold this 
adjudicatory hearing under the rules proposed, I guess, under 
the NRC or the federal rules, that's what everyone here is 
asking for. And I think it's, from my perspective, I don't 
think — you can't do it before the confirmation. That's my 
point. If he could commit to doing it, say, within 60 days or 
90 days, that gives him time to give notice of the hearing and 
so forth, and have it at a convenient place where people could 
attend. 

But I had Devil Canyon in my district at one time and 
others. You know, people, and I am, too, are just frightened 
about what happens with the whole nuclear industry and the 
dangers posed by the half lives, and it just never goes away. 
And I'm not a technical expert, but I certainly believe in the 
expert testimony we've had here today. 

Let me ask you, yes or no, do you think you can have 
an adjudicatory hearing and resolve this question where everyone 
here, then, would have a chance, pro and con, to appear under 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

\9 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



43 
those standards? 

MR. GOULD: Senator, I think in response to that, we 
feel we have gone through a process. And to look at an 
adjudicatory hearing could add substantial delays to any final 
decision that might be made. 

And we have to look at, you know, taking a step 
back, at what we're trying to accomplish. 

SENATOR MELLO: So I take it your answer's no? 

MR. GOULD: Right. 

SENATOR MELLO: Well, I tell you, you might lose the 
votes here, because, I mean, I'm one of your strong supporters. 
I hope you know that. And I have some other questions later on, 
but this is an important issue, I think, with a lot of people. 

I'm really sorry you wouldn't be willing to go 
through the process. 

MR. GOULD: Well — 

SENATOR MELLO: My point is, anything that's good can 
withstand public scrutiny in a public hearing. If it isn't any 
good, we should forget about it. And I think that's the way we 
should proceed. 

MR. GOULD: Senator, I wouldn't disagree at all. We 
want the information, and we want to make sure that any decision 
we make is the right one. 

This is a situation that will be with us for many 
years, and we do not take this siting casually or cavalierly. 

We have gone through an extensive review process. As 
you know, the legislative history, this really started many 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

10 
II 
12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 

20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



44 
years ago, back in 1983. Senator Alquist was one of the first 
state authors to really start the state in the direction of 
acquiring a site and moving forward. 

We have gone through -- and we checked with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the question of what was the 
appropriate process for California. CEQA ' s process was 
certified to be an appropriate process. We went through that. 

We have tried to be very deliberate in terms of 
getting information and making responsible choices. 

So, I'm not trying to avoid information, nor trying 
to in any way avoid making a responsible decision on this. 

The question is whether or not — 

SENATOR MELLO: I think that would resolve it fairly, 
but I'm really sorry that you've taken the negative approach, 
because I would have hoped you'd have said, "Yes, let's hold it, 
and we'll do it in May or June." 

I think with that commitment from you, that would 
satisfy me, certainly, and I hope everyone here. 

Okay, thank you. 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: I just — Senator Mello, I just 
wanted to add one thing, and also Mr. Gould, perhaps — I know 
there ' s so many things that you have to tend to that you may not 
be aware of this . 

But this was shocking and appalling for me to 
understand that part of the state process over the last eight 
years was working with the League of Women Voters in San 
Bernardino County, near Needles. A very small group of elderly 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

X 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 



45 
women -- I've met with them before -- who worked closely with 
the dump contractor, U.S. Ecology; were paid, I believe, $65,000 
to write a manual, a public relations manual for how citizens 
are to deal with a nuclear waste dump. The manual, which I 
believe we can send to the Senators if you would like to see, is 
inaccurate. The information is not accurate. It does not 

[(correspond to Department of Energy statistics. 

This is not due process of democracy. There was not 
any collection of people across the state that had an 

(opportunity to respond, and this is an issue that will not just 
impact people in Needles. This will impact an entire state. 

So, I don't understand the technical aspects of what 
the CEQA process is, but I can tell you that this was not a 
majority process. And as you can see here, your very own 

.Legislators are very unfamiliar with the details of Ward Valley. 

JThis does not seem like a state that's been informed. 

I 

As a matter of fact, when I first brought this to the 

(Hollywood community, because there were many grass-roots 

organizations that had been working on this for months, and 

!; still nobody knew about this in May, and the dump was to be 

j licensed in July, people had never heard of Ward Valley. And 

there's still people across the state who do not know of Ward 

Valley. 

This is a financial disaster, potentially greater 

than the savings and loan debacle. Why are these questions not 

being answered? Why has State Controller Gray Davis been 

stonewalled, Lieutenant Governor Leo McCarthy, numerous 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

l > 
10 

13 
14 
I? 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

23 

i 

26 

27 
28 



46 
Legislators that have been working on this? We've had hearings 
with Byron Sher. I know that none of this is new to you. This 
is not a simple move. 

Maybe you can answer some of those questions. Do you 
feel that the League of Women Voters in San Bernardino County, a 
group of elderly women, is a consensus for an entire state on a 
major move that will impact future generations? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll have you ask that question, 
but in the future, direct your questions through the Chair. 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: Excuse me, I'm so sorry. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: It's quite all right. 

Mr. Gould or Dr. Coye. 

DR. COYE: I think it is important to add that there 
were both 27 public hearings during the process, the earlier 
process of the siting and design process, and also since the 
EIR, there were seven full formal public hearings that were 
held. 

So, the League of Women Voters process was not the 
only process for public participation. There is almost nothing 
that goes on in this state that everybody in the state knows 
about. But seven hearings were held, including in Northern 
California, in areas that are not directly involved. So, we 
were trying to make sure that everybody knew. 

So, there certainly has been that attempt. 

I think it's also important and interest to look at 
the involvement of the League of Women Voters historically. At 
that time that was done, the idea of essentially forcing the 



47 
potential contractor to pay for the involvement of the public 
was seen as a very radical step. That this was basically 
saying, "Why should the state pay for it? We should force those 
who are actually going to benefit from the operation of the site 
to put up the money for this . " 

And the League of Women Voters has been traditionally 
looked at as a very respected entity to handle public 
participation. 

So, I don't — as you know, being relatively new to 
the process -- know the specifics of the particular League of 
Women Voters group that handled this, but in general, I think 
the assumption was that the League of Women Voters is a very 
respected group to have handle public participation, in addition 
to formal public hearings, not as a substitute for that but in 
addition to it. 

So, while I think that this, you know, certainly has 
not meant that everybody you've had contact with has known about 
this, that there has been some fairly substantial public 
awareness. As Mr. Gould said, over a thousand EIR reports have 
been distributed, mailed oat. And we know from the responses, 

they've been very carefully studied. 

22 

So, I think that there has been at least a very well- 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 

) 
1 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
28 



meaning attempt to get the information out. 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: And I — may I respond, please? 

I do believe that years ago, perhaps, it was a novel 
idea to work with the League of Women Voters. I think that 
they've been misinformed on the facts. I've participated in 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



48 

numerous public hearings that have occurred in the last nine 
months, and I have to say that they're very distressing. 

As I said, it's my first time being involved in 
public policy. And I watched the Department of Health Services 
hearings in July, where they purposefully spread out the 
hearings across the state — in Needles, Los Angeles, and 
Sacramento -- to make the opposition — have it more difficult 
for us to mobilize. 

And this was not recorded factually. People did not 
have to -- to swear their testimony. There were things that 
were not accurate. And I also watched major media 
environmentalists walk around and shake hands with the Cal Rad 
forum and articles that were prewritten before the hearings. 

This is very upsetting when you come in in an 
innocent fashion, as I did, believing that our system of 
government and the media work when you give them the facts, and 
you find out that that doesn't happen. And as a private 
citizen, that you spend thousands of hours of your personal 
time. I took a sabbatical from my work in film because I was so 
frightened about what was happening, and tried to raise money to 
-- to help all the other groups across the state that were — 
jjthat were doing it. 

What I would like to believe is that concerned 
citizens could have called the DHS, and organization that I had 
never heard of until this time, and say, "Dr. Molly Coye, we 
hear that you have a wonderful environmental track record. We 
are concerned. May we sit with you to discuss these things with 



49 
you? " 

Certainly the responses that you got from the EIR 

3 i! 

ifrom numerous technical experts, Dan Hirsch being one of the 

4 

most brilliant, showed that there were grave concerns. 
Congressman George Miller has written numerous reports on the 

6 

concerns. These things are not being answered. 

7 

Why are they not — excuse me, Senator Roberti. 



8 ,1 

9 

i 

10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
IS 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll ask the question. It's 
okay; I understand. 

Maybe Mr. Gould or Dr. Coye can address the question 
of responses to these individuals in your conclusion. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. GLUCKSTEIN: Thank you very much. Thank you. 

MR. ADAMS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee. 

In the interest of being brief, I will not repeat 
much of what you just heard from Dana and from Dan Hirsch. But 
I would like to tell you my own version of being involved with 
this real quickly. 

I've been working on the Ward Valley — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please identify yourself. 

MR. ADAMS: Certainly. My name is Jim Adams, and 
I'm representing the Redwood Alliance, and I live up in Arcada 
in Northern California, Humboldt County. 

I've been working on the Ward Valley issue now for 18 
months, and I have to say that the process that I have been 
involved with has been flawed. I've attended the public 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



23 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



50 
ijhearings . I've written numerous letters. I've helped organize 

the state coalition of the group of people that you see before 

you today on Ward Valley. 

I believe truly that unless we have an adjudicatory 

hearing on this issue, the State of California will be making a 

grave mistake by moving forward on this project. There's 
j|absolutely no question, given the issues involved, the potential 

disaster both economic and environmental, the breadth of the 

opposition both from Congress people, from elected officials in 
[.California, the issued involved, that the only way that we can 
! resolve this is have a meaningful, public hearing on the issues 

of Ward Valley. 

I am urging the Committee to delay the confirmation 

of Mr. Gould and Ms. Coye, both of whom I met with on Monday, 
jiand I wish to reiterate that this is not a personal matter. 

This is a matter of professional involvement here. That I wish 

that this Committee delay their confirmation until they agree to 
'have an adjudicatory hearing. 

We have asked for this — Mr. Gould mentioned that 

|l 
there was a delay; that the adjudicatory hearing would mean a 

idelay. That may be, but we made this request well over a year 

ago to have the adjudicatory hearing, and that denied. 

The fact of the matter is that if they would have 

proceeded with the adjudicatory hearing, which they have the 

authority to do, and in fact is the common sense thing to do, we 

would have had the hearing already. We would have had much more 

information on the record, and I think we'd all be in a better 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 

■>-> 



23 | 

24 

|j 

25 
26 

27 |i 
28 



51 
situation in terms of trying to understand just what sort of a 
project's here, a project that will affect California for 
literally thousands of years. And that is not an exaggeration, 
given the half lives of the material we're talking here. 

Be that as it may, if it means that we have an 
adjudicatory hearing and we delay the licensing six months or 
even a year, given the time that this project and its impact, 
its potential impact on California, I would think that that's 
time well spent, particularly raising the issues that we yet — 
we have yet to get the adequate information. 

Dan Hirsch raised the issue of tritium. The issue of 
why the facility has no liner designed to be placed underneath 
it. The reason why the other companies that were awarded the 
!bids prior to the current licensee, U.S. Ecology, refused to 
take the project on. The ability of U.S. Ecology to build and 
operate a facility given their track record in Kentucky and 
Illinois, where both of the facilities leaked, and it's cost 
those states millions of dollars. And in fact, the State of 
Kentucky, U.S. Ecology is trying to get the State of Kentucky 
to pay the entire bill for cleaning the mess up underneath the 
facility, and numerous other issues. 

Until we have a hearing to discuss those and get the 
experts to look at the information — we have discovery rights; 
we have the ability to prepare briefs and submit findings of 
information before a judge and have him issue a decision on the 
project — we will not have done what the public interest 
demands . 



2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

8 j 

9 
10 

H 
II ' 

Q 
12 

13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



52 

And I would hope that the Committee Members take 
their responsibility this afternoon very seriously. And you 
have heard Mr. Gould flat-out deny or refuse to have an 
adjudicatory hearing, and I find, actually, the response to be 
fairly outrageous. And I believe that if that is the response, 
then the confirmation should be delayed. 

I understand the time that you raised, Mr. Mello, in 
terms of the so-called drop dead date, but I believe that here 
and now, Ms. Coye and Mr. Gould could in fact say yes to the 
question of the adjudicatory hearing. And the fact that they're 
not willing to do that tells me that they really don't want to 
provide a public forum so that we can get to the bottom of this 
project. And that, in my view, is what is going on here today. 

So, with that, I will conclude and urge you to please 
delay confirmation until these folks agree to do the common 
sense thing; that is, grant us the adjudicatory hearing. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Adams. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris has a question. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'll wait. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good, thank you. 

Next witness, please. 

MS. MEDDICK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, honorable 
Members . 

My name is Sherry Meddick. I am the United States 
Radwaste Campaign coordinator for Greenpeace. 

I have been involved in this process, and 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

18 jj 
19 
20 
21 



I 
23 

24 

25 
2b 

21 



53 
specifically in analyzing the waste stream, since last July. I 
want you to note that I have used every available means given me 
through the variety of processes since that time. I have a 
paper trail a mile long. 

I cannot get the information from the DHS that I have 
requested. 

What I originally sought to do was to look at the 
preliminary data that they used to develop the waste stream 
scenarios in the EIR. That's all I had asked for. 

What I really wanted to know is how they arrived at 
the numbers that they arrived at. A pretty good question and a 
simple one. 

Well, it has been anything but simple to get the 
data. Beginning in July, I began to place calls to DHS Chief, 
Don Langendorf, asking first, "Did you analyze the shipping 
manifest for the waste?" 

Dr. Tamara Marcus, a Cal Rad Forum member, and also a 
U.C.L.A. Patient Clinic physician, had indicated that she had 
received, quote, "the original waste manifest" from the chief of 
Radiological Health. 

I immediately placed a call to Ed Bailey, who denied 
having the waste manifest and said that in fact that statement 
had caused him quite a bit of trouble. 

So, I then wrote a letter to Don Langendorf, asking 
him, "Well, if you didn't use this data, precisely what did you 
use?" I'd like to read you his response, if I may. It's very 



brief. 

28 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

1') 

20 

21 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



54 
"Regarding shipping manifest, the 
Department of Health does not have 
copies of the manifest. Neither the 
Environmental Management Branch nor 
the Radiologic Health Branch posses 
them. Dr. Marcus may have received 

blah, blah, blah. 

What that indicates, and this is very important to 
understand, is that the original data used in the EIR was 
provided by the project proponent; that is, the designated 
^licensee U.S. Ecology. 

Then I began to ask the logical question: How did 

you cross check this? What was your independent means of 
i 
analysis to arrive, to verify, that this data was correct? 

Four months later I have not received an answer. ] 

have been working on this now since July, trying to get at a 

very simple point, and I think a very proper one. It's the 

ivery heart of this issue: What is the waste? Where is it 

i 

coming from? How much is there? What kind of waste, et 

I 

cetera? 

So, in Mr. Gould's responses to your questions, 
Senator Petris, he describes a couple of different things. He 
does not say that they did an independent analysis, because it 
appears they have not . 

What he does say is that, concerning the review of 
the waste stream data, a review of the process is informative. 



55 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 



23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
2H 



It is, indeed. It informed me that the DHS took no independent 

action to verify, analyze, the data. 

Furthermore, even upon multiple public requests by 

telephone and through written communication, and now through a 

Public Information Act request, I still cannot get the very 

data. 

If these people had, if this Agency had, been 

responsible, they would have immediately handed over the data, 
[looking forward to the public's cross check, to say, "Yes, we 

agree. These numbers are right." Or, "Whoops. Somebody made a 

mistake. This information is wrong, and you should know about 

it. " 

What has happened, however, is the following. Once 
lit was determined, as Dan Hirsch indicated, that we have very 

high levels of tritium in the waste, a very large percentage, 
I there was -- there was momentum for a mandatory tritium 

recapturing program. Instead of throwing it in the ground, 

dumping it in barrels, which American Ecology [sic] has 

admitted will seriously disintegrate in 50 years -- instead of 
(doing that, why don't we recapture it? 

Well, once the industry got wind of that, all heck 

broke loose. What happened was, they said, "Oh, wait a minute. 

!l 

We don't have that much tritium." 

In this letter that they sent you, they have now 
revised their figures once gain. And do you think I can get 
the figures once again? And do you think I can get the 
preliminary data to show even this? I've asked for the surveys 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 
8 

10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 



56 
that are mentioned. They have not been forthcoming. 

They indicated to Congressman Miller that these 
surveys were done by telephone. This document says that they 
were done in writing. 

The only possible process that can shed light on 
this properly so that the public has an alternative to have 
their questions answered in detail, in substance, is that 
adjudicatory hearing process. 

When the public gets up at a public hearing, they 
'have five minutes. They cannot go into detail. They submit 
written comments, and with the assumption that their question 
will actually be answered. But even your questions weren't 
answered, Senator Petris, as you are well aware. 

I'm extremely distressed to see this. To me, this 
was nothing more than a lot of tap dancing around the very 

issues that are causing the problem. 

I 

Had they come forward, had they said, "We made a 

mistake, let's go back and clear this up. Let's look out for 

'the well being of the state and the citizens," I would feel 

much better. But it's clear that the Agency doesn't have that 

direction in mind, and it's very disconcerting. 

I would like to just finally add that regarding the 

I 

[hydrology, I have done extensive readings in to the geological 
reports, many of which address this region, the Ward Valley. 
There are indications from experts that hydrology cannot 

•; clearly be understood without at least five years of study. 
That has not happened here . They haven ' t even scratched the 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

IS I 
19 

20 

i 

21 



79 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2S 



57 

surface. 

The Regional Water Quality Board, Region 7, Bob 
Purdue, informed me that they basically know nothing about the 
water basin. They don't know where it goes; they don't know 
how big it is; they don't know on and on and on. 

And here we are, putting radioactive waste, which 
will last for over 12,000 generations -- twelve thousand 
generations — above a major source of potential drinking 
water. In fact, they've even talked about banking Colorado 
River water in this aquifer. 

I would suggest to you that in view of DHS ' s what I 
would call irresponsible lack of concern for the public's right 
to know, that I would ask for an adjudicated hearing, and I 
would ask that decision, that obligation, be made today; that 
it not be extended. That we -- that somebody takes some action 
today. 

I'm very concerned that this not go on any longer. 
I have -- I'm going to literally have to write dozens upon 
dozens of Public Information Act requests, which I should not 
have to do, and frankly, I don't want to have to do. I would 
prefer to hash this out in a proper -- a proper proceeding. 

If you have any questions, I ' d be happy to answer 
them. And just for the record, for your file, I would like to 
submit these into the administrative — whatever process — 
record you have up here, if I may. Those are the various 
communications between myself and DHS, and also the results of 
a meeting with these two individuals on Monday, which, I might 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 

12 

I 

i 

13 

14 

16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 



23 

24 
25 
2d 
27 
28 



58 
add, resulted in absolutely no -- virtually no resolution of 
any of the issues. 

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take 
them. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You are Ms. Reddick? 

MS. MEDDICK: Ms. Meddick. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I was just going to ask your name 
again and your affiliation. I missed that at the beginning. 

MS. MEDDICK: I'm the United States Radwaste 
Campaigner for Greenpeace. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MS. MEDDICK: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there another witness? 

MS. GODSHALL: Thank you, Members of the Committee. 

My name is Liberty Godshall. I'm here as a citizen 
and a taxpayer, also the mother of a six-year-old son. 

Four years ago, my husband, Edward Wick, and I 
created a television show called "thirtysomething" . And as 
story editor, I tried to create characters who felt a moral 
obligation to confront political and environmental problems. 

I -- I want to say today that, sitting here and 
listening to this, I am frankly frightened to death, and many 
other people in my community are as well. 

The idea of listening to even contemplating risking 
our state's, and many other states', water supply is very 
frightening to me, to say nothing of the burden for the already 



59 
over-burdened taxpayers of California. 

I would just like to say that I don't understand 
why we can't have an adjudicatory hearing, because we have 
everything to gain by it and nothing to lose. However, if we 
don't have it, the damage is irrevocable. 

So, I'm calling for that, and also a delay in the 
confirmation of Mr. Gould and Dr. Coye. 

Thank you very much 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Godshall. 

How many other states have sited their nuclear 
waste site pursuant to — 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: None, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Let me ask Mr. Gould. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How many other states have sited 
their federally mandated nuclear waste site? Do you have any 
idea? 

MR. GOULD: Well, there are three operating sites 
currently. One in Beatty, Nevada; one in Washington, and I 
believe one in -- was it North Carolina or South Carolina? 

DR. COYE: South. 

MR. GOULD: South Carolina. 

I don't believe that any new sites, though, have 

[been establish as a result of the federal process, if that's 

your question. 
2o 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, there's no site pursuant to 

27 

the federal process. Three states already, apparently, do have 
28 



l 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

9 

I 

10 ;, 

12 
13 

14 

» ; 

16 

ii 
| 

17 
18 
[9 
20 

21 \ 
22 

24 



60 
sites pursuant to a different process before the law passed. 

MR. GOULD: That's right. Many of these have been 
in operation for some time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I was wondering, if the issue is 
federal law that we have to conform to, we can't delay that to 
any great extent . 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 

If other states haven't moved that rapidly, why is 

8 

California moving rapidly? 

MR. GOULD: I think it goes to two questions. 
10 

First, in terms of the provisions of federal law, after 
11 

January 1st of 1993, those sites — I mentioned Nevada, 



12 ! 

13 

14 
15 

Ift 

17 

'« 
I 1 ) 

20 

2. 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Washington and South Carolina — could limit access to their 
sites and put California in a position of having to maintain 
its waste within California, either at transfer stations or at 
the sites themselves. We have over 500 generators within 
California. 

So, that is a factor in terms of the overall timing 
question. 

I think what the other states are looking for is 
what kind of progress is being made. I think the State of 
Michigan has already had some problems with these states that 
do have facilities because of their lack of progress. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You mean if California evidences 
a lack of progress, then our ability to dump waste outside of 
our own state is going to be restricted? 

DR. COYE: My understanding is that the court 
decision in the case of Michigan -- and again, I'm not a lawyer 



5 i 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

» | 

20 



n 



23 
24 

25 
26 

27 



61 
— but my understanding of this is that they said that if 
Michigan had not shown substantial progress as of '93, that 
that deadline of January, '93, then the other states, the three 
states that currently accept low level radioactive waste, could 
reject Michigan's waste. 

So, there is a hazard in beginning to make 
progress, and unless you have, as we are currently — we are 
going slower than many anticipated we would because we have 
questions, and because we're trying to learn about some of 
these issues and pursue them - if we all of a sudden said, "No, 
we will not move at all; we're just simply going to wait and 
drop back to the middle of the pack, " then in that case, we 
would risk a declaration that you don't — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Right now, we dump our nuclear 
waste where? Some of it we keep here, as I understand. Some 
of it goes to, what, Nevada? 

DR. COYE: Beatty in Nevada, and some of it may go 
to Ridgeland. I'm sure nothing goes to South Carolina. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How much of it stays within the 
state? 

DR. COYE: I -- the question — a fair amount of it 
lis held temporarily in the state. Some medical facilities do 
have on-site permanent storage. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's what I was told — 

DR. COYE: And some doesn't leave at all. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — in earlier testimony. 

DR. COYE: I don't know — I can provide that 



28 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 



8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
■>2 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2S 



62 
information. I don't know it personally. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, it's mixed. Some stays; you 
don't have a percentage. Other goes to Beatty, maybe to South 
Carolina . 

DR. COYE: By volume, probably most of it leaves. 
By radioactivity, I don't know what proportion stays or goes. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: This is a very difficult issue. 
I very much want to vote for your confirmation, Mr. Gould, and 
frankly, we haven't heard the testimony on Dr. Coye, but I 
suspect my feelings would be the same. 

Nevertheless, sometimes you have to make 
irretrievable decisions that last for the generations. That's 
just the nature of government. 

But I don't know if the opponents to confirmation 
-- I don't think that's the correct word -- have established a 
conclusive case, but I think maybe they've established a prima 
facie case, in my mind, that maybe we should give this a little 
thought . 

I am, unfortunately, not a molecular scientist, so 
I don't — I mean, I have to give it a little thought, but I 
don't know if it will be that damaging to our state's interests 
or to the environment to have this adjudicatory hearing. 

Frankly, I have to acquaint myself a little bit 
more with what an adjudicatory hearing is. 

But after today's witnesses, I tend to think 
they've established a prima facie case that there is a problem, 
and it's one that maybe has to be addressed. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
28 



63 

Now, maybe it is true that you will be able to 
ijovercome that, and I certainly hate holding up your appointment 
because of it, because I, frankly, think you're a good 
appointee. But this is an enormous issue. Both of you are 
good appointees. This is an enormous issue, as you know. And 
the last thing I would like to have happen if there ever is a 
disaster — and I hope there isn't, you know — is that we were 
slovenly about the matter. That would be just something that 
would come to haunt all of us. 

Senator Petris, I believe you had a question. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I have pretty much the same 
feelings . 

I'm very concerned about what I've heard on the 
adjudicatory process, and I would urge both Dr. Coye and 
Mr. Gould to reconsider. 

I understand the original decision was made before 
your time anyway. 

I had a case once, years ago, in a federal court in 
which a client of mine was prosecuted under a federal criminal 
statute dealing with the Communications Act. And I went to the 
U.S. Attorney, who spent a lot of time up here before he was 
appointed. It was a very important First Amendment case, as I 
saw it. 

I said, "You ought to get off this guy's back. 
He's not violating any laws. He's operating as a provider of 
information. " 

He said, "Well, you're probably right, but, you 



64 

I 

know, I'm new here. And this decision was made before I got 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 
X 

10 

II 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 

i 
i 
17 

18 

I 1 ) 
20 
21 



23 
24 
25 

lb 

27 
28 



here . " 

"Well, it was a bad decision. You have the power 
to change it, so change it." 

Well, he wouldn't change it, and he got clobbered 
in court, thanks to my skills as a criminal law defense lawyer. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have a lifetime winning average. 
I've never lost a criminal case. That's the only one I ever 
tried. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: But — and I can understand the 
reticence as part of good administration and rapport with your 
people, if a decision's been made, and you know, you come in 
later, and they're operating on that decision, and they're 
doing things, it's a little difficult to buck the tide and 
say, "Wait a minute. This thing has to be reconsidered, and I 
think we ought to change it. Let's go for the hearing." 

That takes more, well, let's say guts, and goes 
against the grain, more than if you just said, "Well, okay, 
that decision was made. We're honored to — or at least I feel 
obligated to honor it, and we'll go ahead." 

I would urge you to just forget about the momentum 
that's been built up within the Department prior to your 
arrival, and reconsider it, and say, well, you don't know how 
the hearing's going to come out; neither do the advocates of 
the hearing. I guess they're very confident that they can get 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

iy 

20 

21 

22 

! 
23 

24 

25 

2b 

27 
28 



65 
the proper scientific information before the administrative 
judge, but I don't know how many of them would take a bet on 
the outcome. 

You have genuine differences of opinion in the 
scientific community on both sides. Some scientists must have 
advised you people that it's okay to go this way. So, it's not 
an open-and-shut case. 

Yet it seems to me that the proper thing, because 
the stakes are so high — I think that's what Senator Roberti * s 
emphasizing, the stakes are so high in this area. We've never 
dealt with this before. It's still new. And if we had some 
problems based on a helter-skelter decision, it would haunt all 
of us . 

So, I would urge you to reconsider. You know, put 
your heads together. 

I would like to see us put this over. A week would 
be enough. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The last thing I want to do is 
just have Mr. Gould's time run out. 

Maybe we can talk to you. Maybe within a week's 
time, you will conclusively convince us that, you know, the 
delay's unwarranted and it would be more harmful to the state 
to make a delay. Maybe we can have some conversations, and I 
think the governor has some major input in this area, too. 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, may I just pursue one 
point . 

That is, being the only attorney -- nonattorney 



I 

j 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

.. I 

12 | 
13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

IK 

\9 

20 

21 
■n 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

">S! 



66 
here present today, my colleagues all being attorneys, I was 
reluctant to ask the difference between an adjudicatory hearing 
and what goes for the CEQA process. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: But now you can because I 
admitted my lack of knowledge. 

SENATOR MELLO: Senator Roberti said I'd like to 
hear more about this, so now I'm not afraid to ask the 
question. 

But I would like to know. The reason why I think 
-- if the opponents here today, if they feel they have a better 
shot in court for filing a motion, a lawsuit, appeal, or 
whatever, if that's the case, then I know those CEQAs are being 
challenged all the time. They get in court. 

So, can you tell me, and I'd like to ask somebody 
from the other side who's knowledgeable in the adjudicatory 
jjprocess, what is the difference? Well, what risk do you take 
by going to an adjudicatory process that you feel would be more 
difficult to defend? 

DR. COYE: Neither of us are lawyers, and so, I'm 
fool hardy enough to try to respond to this. And I suspect 
some of the other people in the audience will also contribute a 

libetter — or some elements to understanding this. 

[I 

But the essential difference is -- is that in the 
CEQA process, the public has the opportunity to put forward 
their opinion, either verbally or written, and is responded to 
by the Department or -- by the Department or by the Agency. 

In, as I understand it, in an adjudicatory 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



67 
process, there is opportunity for discovery and 
cross-examination. And it's in front of, I believe, an 
adjudicatory -- I don't know the right term for the judge — 
administrative law judge, thank you, who hears this. 

SENATOR MELLO: The point is, under CEQA, I think 
you didn't go far enough. A public agency can made a negative 
declaration, or they can do mitigation and so forth. But 
still, the opponents of the project under CEQA, they're in 
court all the time. They find that the findings are not 
(Correct. The Environmental Impact Report did not properly 
reflect the findings, or due process was not carried out, and 

iso forth. 

i 

So, I guess, you mentioned, then, that the 
findings, and cross-examination, so now my next questions is, 
what in the findings do you believe might be adversely 
effective to your case, and you're fearful of them being — I'm 
jthinking in my mind about the 55,000 barrels that were dumped 
oat into the Pacific Ocean out in San Francisco a few years 
ago. Whether or not there was an adjudicatory hearing on that, 
I don't recall. But I know there's a lot of monitoring going 
on. Someday we might pay a real price for that. 

But let them answer, is it the findings, and the 
discovery, and the briefs that you're concerned about? 

DR. COYE: I think the concern is, frankly, more 
one of if we came to the point of feeling that all of the 
materials that we're currently reviewing suggest that we should 
go forward, that the estimates of the time required for an 



3 

4 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
28 



68 

adjudicatory process, I believe, are somewhere in the order of 
six months to a year-and-a-half , because of the complexity of 
it. And -- 

SENATOR MELLO: She said 12,000 generations, and 
usually I talk in years. Two hundred thousand years is better 
to understand, but what's six months got to do with the half 
lives of nuclear waste? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Lake. 

MR. HIRSCH: It's Hirsch. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Excuse me. 

MR. HIRSCH: That's okay. 

Under the CEQA process, members of the public get 
to attend a meeting in which they make five-minute statements. 
They can send in letters to the state. That's the extent of 
the hearing. That's what they've conducted so far. 

In an adjudicatory hearing, the state's experts 

i 

would be placed on the stand and would be cross examined by 
people technically competent, and would ask them, for example, 
if you were dealing with the waste question of dumping in the 
ocean, "What studies have been done about how they implode as 
they go down? " 

You would have had the right to discovery 
beforehand and been able to obtain those studies in advance; 
you can use use those in cross-examination of that witness. 

Your own experts would be able to review that 
material you obtained in discovery. For example, we would have 
been able to obtain the top 100 generators list for the state, 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
•>~> 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



69 

i 

and been able to find out where the waste was really coming 
I from, and about these alternatives of tritium recovery, which 
we were not able to do under CEQA. And it took a Congressman's 
intervention to get that little bit of information pried out of 
them. 

So, you would have had three things go on: 
discovery, the ability to get the information that their 
agencies have withheld so far; the ability to scrutinize the 
claims made by their experts which our experts find to be 
'scientifically in error; and the ability to have our scientific 
experts come up and rebut. 

Lastly, there would be a find on the record in 
which both parties would put forward the proposed findings and 
conclusions — findings of fact and conclusions of law. And 
the judge or judges would have to make a decision based on that 
record, without ex parte , off the record, information coming 
forward. 

The difference, quite frankly, is the dumps — you 
know, the dumping of those barrels into the ocean, in my view 
it would never have occurred. I know about one site off of Los 
Angeles where they said in advance in the environmental review: 
don't worry; stuff will not get out of the barrels. And twelve 
years later, after they dumped, they went down and found a 
third of the barrels had breached. 

Had there been a proper adjudicatory hearing 
beforehand, those claims would have been challenged, 
scrutinized, and hopefully, a more scientifically based 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
2X 



70 
decision should be reached. 

Now, I don't want to fool this Committee or the 
public in thinking that an adjudicatory hearing is magic. The 
NRC procedures are vastly better than what the state has 
permitted so far, but in my view, they're pretty corrupt also. 

And one piece of news that you probably know 
already is -- and I don't know why you're so scared of the 
hearing for this reason -- that the NRC proceedings, there has 
never, ever been an adjudicatory hearing in which the public 
have won. The choice of administrative judges by the agency 
has always been of people with such strong views already that 
the outcome is preordained. 

What has happened -- 

SENATOR MELLO: Let me ask a question. 

The administrative law judge makes a decision based 
on the findings of fact? 

MR. HIRSCH: You may propose findings of fact, and 
then the judge issues his or her own opinion. 

SENATOR MELLO: What happens? Is this a federal 
hearing in a federal court? 

MR. HIRSCH: It's an administrative proceeding not 
in court. 

SENATOR MELLO: Under the federal authority, 
though? 

MR. HIRSCH: That's right, and the state, because 
it's an agreement state, should be doing the equivalent 
operation here. 



71 

SENATOR MELLO: Is it appealable to a federal 
district court? 

MR. HIRSCH: Yes. After the decision is issued by 

the adjudicatory proceeding, you have appellate rights if you 

i 

believe that there has been a violation of process. Generally 
the courts will not second-guess the factual judgment made by 
jthe lower tribunal, but will determine if there's been an error 
of law. 

SENATOR MELLO: Okay, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Anyone else here to testify? Yes, please come 

forward. 

i 

MS. RAFTERY: My name is Mary Raftery. I'm a 
policy analyst for CALPIRG. It's the California Public in 
Trust Research Group. 

I am here speaking on behalf of our 12 0,000 members 

across this state, and we have -- we share the technical 

concerns that have been voiced by the preceding speakers. And 

in fact feel like we could go on to prove not only the prima 

facie need for the adjudicatory hearing, but in fact go on to 

prove conclusively the questions that remain unanswered on this 
22 

dump. 
23 \ 

But the only one I'll answer is what would happen 

24 

if the three dumps closed down. I think it's important to 
25 

realize there are 31 other states who are in the same — who 

26 

have that same question facing them as California does right 
2 1 

now. And in fact, those states are hoping that we do move 

28 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

10 

20 

21 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

18 j 
19 

20 
21 

,. j 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



72 

forward on this dump, and that they may be able to get access 
to it. It makes it easy for them. 

So, it's not clear what will happen, but it's 
likely that two of those dumps that are currently operating may 
stay open, or they may just raise their cost to send things 
there. It's not certain that those three dumps will close 
down. 

So, I'll leave the technical concerns at that, and 
say that we do have another overriding concern, which is just 
the public process issue. We really have been unable to get 
adequate access to key information about the dump, and feel 
that that adjudicatory hearing is a very simple answer to give 
us the access we need to have a clear debate about the dump and 
to answer the questions at hand. 

And frankly, we're just bewildered by the Agency 
that is unwilling to grant that. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

SENATOR MELLO: Are we going to put him over at 
this point? I have a letter here that I wanted to give him so 
he could respond to -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Let's see if there are any other 
witnesses first. 

Thank you very much. 

Please come forward. 

MR. YOUNG: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify. My name is Ward Young. I'm an 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 

6 

7 
8 

10 
II 

12 
13 

14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 

20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2X 



73 
environmental educator. I work with the Bay Area Nuclear Waste 
Coalition. 

I would like to address the broad question of the 
legacy that we are leaving to the future with this proposed 
Ward Valley radioactive waste dump. 

We've had testimony telling you about the misnomer 
that a lot of the material is short-lived medical waste, when 
in reality much of the material is very long-lived and very 
^hazardous . 



What we are — what is being proposed here is to 
dump radioactive — long-lived radioactive materials directly 
into the environment, to inject them into the environment. 

Now, in other states, many other states have 
outlawed this method of burial. They have outlawed shallow 
land burial. And this is one of the things that we need to do 
in California. 

In other countries, much of this waste is not 
considered low level waste. It is considered high level waste, 
and will be — for example, in Swede, they are attempting to 
come up with methods which would contain this waste for 
hundreds of thousands of years. Whereas, in California, the 
proposal is to inject it, as I said, directly into the 
environment . 

It is a great fallacy to believe that regulating 
this site would end 100 years after closure, which is the 
current law. The citizens of Sheffield, Illinois, home to a 
dump operated by this same contract, U.S. Ecology, won't forget 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

II 

12 
13 
14 
15 

\b 
17 
IX 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 



74 
about the movements of radioactive substances, which is taking 
'place now, into the groundwater they drink and the air they 
breathe. The costs, both in health terms and in economic terms 
will continue to mount far into the future. 

We need to fully examine the long-term nature of 
some of the radioactive substances that would be buried at Ward 
Valley before this dump would become a permanent part of the 
.landscape and our legacy to the future. 

Please require an adjudicatory hearing before the 
process goes further, and before this confirmation is 
completed. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Any other witnesses? 

MS. BRANGAN: Hello. I'm Mary Beth Brangan from 
the Nuclear Democracy Project, and I'm also a film maker, a 
producer of educational media. And we're focused mainly on the 
topic of how the nuclear issue affects democracy. 

And I'm -- you -- everyone here who has testified 
before me in opposition has spoken very completely. I won't go 
over anything else, except to say that I am heartened by your 
response in the democratic process. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Brangan. 

Anyone else? 

MR. KLASKY: I'll be brief. 

There was a lot I wanted to say; a lot has been 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

X 

9 

10 

I! 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2b 

27 

2S 



75 
said. 

My name is Philip Klasky with the Bay Area Nuclear 
Waste Coalition. 

I, too, am heartened by your response. I think 
it's a very responsible response, given the situation. 

I'm here to express my serious concerns about this 
confirmation. In my view, the confirmation should be 
contingent upon agreement to hold adjudicatory hearings. 
That's very simple; it's very direct. We've seen that today. 

Another consideration is that California could 
become the nation's nuclear dumping grounds. As you indicated, 
Senator Roberti, we're the furthest along of all the states. 
The NRC has the power to direct radioactive waste from any 
other state to California under emergency access provisions. 
And the Compact Commission, which is made of appointees, also 
has this power. 

Instead of providing the public and its elected 
representatives with independent information about a number of 
issues, the DHS has depended on U.S. Ecology, the dump 
contractor who has left a legacy of leaking dumps all across 
the United States, for this information. And U.S. Ecology has 
tailored this information to manipulate the facts. That's why 
we need an adjudicatory hearing. 

We need to let the public into the democratic 
process. We need to let the public know that this process can 
work in their favor. And decisions that you make today will 
certainly affect thousands of future generations. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 

12 

|| 

13 

•4 I 

15 

16 
17 

18 > 
19 
20 

21 

n 

23 

» t 

25 
26 

27 
2S 



76 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Any other witnesses? 

MR. EICHELBERGER: My name is Don Eichelberger . 
I'm with the Abalone Alliance, safe energy clearinghouse, in 
San Francisco. 

And I thank you for today ' s opportunity to make my 
points . 

The first point I want to make is that as — having 
iworked in this issue for 13 years, and having worked on the 
Ward Valley issue for about two-and-a-half years, since the 
release of the Environmental Impact Statement and call for 

comments in the Federal Register, prior to that time, we had no 

i 
indication of the hearings, the many hearings, that were held 

predominately in and about Santa Barbara — or, San Bernardino 

County, excuse me, on this dump. 

So, to say that there was adequate input, I think, 
is questionable just based on my personal experience in that. 

I'd like bring a slightly historical aspect to this 
issue in terms of a similar set of hearings that happened 13 
years ago before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when the 
Abalone Alliance petitioned to have Rancho Seco shut down in 
the wake of the Three Mile Island accident. 

At that time, at those hearings, we were requesting 
the then State Department of Health Services Director on a 
report that was issued by their office, citing a direct 
relationship between radioactivity contamination in cow's milk 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



77 
and the distance of dairies from Rancho Seco. And at that 
time, the Director of Health Services didn't know about the 
report that was issued by their office, and so our member 
attempted to put them under citizen's arrest for dereliction of 
duty. 

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on what 
side of the table you are on, we couldn't find any precedent or 
any enabling legislation to allow that. 

So, what has that taught us in the last 13 years? 
Well, in 13 years the voters of Sacramento County have voted to 
shut down Rancho Seco, taking a step that the regulators failed 
to do 13 years ago, realizing it's dangerous. It now sits 
there, waiting to be de-commissioned, waiting to be taken apart 
and placed into a repository. If this license goes through, it 
will go to Ward Valley, very much of it, except for the spent 
fuel rods and the core. The rest of it is subject to go to 
Ward Valley. 

In the absence of the kind of personal 
accountability we were looking for when we tried to put the 
state Health Services Director under citizen's arrest, we feel 
like the process itself needs to protect the public from the 
kind of decisions that could be made. 

Therefore, we strongly urge a -- the approval of an 
adjudicatory hearing so that we can get all of our concerns on 
the board and let people know what it is that this dump 
represents . 

And just a final shot, this is — this should not 



78 

be a dump. I keep wanting to push for the concept of 

2 

repository. A dump in an unlined trench in the middle of the 

;desert, no matter where it is, in the middle of the desert or a 

4 !; 

swamp, doesn't pass simple requirements for a state landfill in 

5 

this country, in this state. It shouldn't — especially 



6 

7 
8 

10 

II 
12 
13 
14 
15 



16 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



shouldn't pass any kind of set of requirements or expectations 
for a nuclear waste dump with the kinds of half lives we're 
looking at. 

And I think that we do need to look at this and 
give this large issue the kind of respect it deserves. And the 
only way we can do that is through an adjudicatory hearing. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Eichelberger . 

Are there any other witnesses? 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is on a different issue. Do you have a copy 

i 

of the Filante letter? 

MR. GOULD: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR MELLO: Assemblyman Filante had asked me to 
try to get some answers on the letter. He's upset that the 
'Governor didn't respond to his letter in two weeks. And I 
( said, "My goodness, this makes me feel good that I don't get a 
response for several months." 

But at any rate, his letter points out — and I 
didn't sign the letter, but 34 Members did sign it. I do agree 
with him. That is that your Department has set standards on 



I 

2 
3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 

10 
II 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
\9 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 
2b 

27 
28 



79 
closing the National Guard Armories on the homeless using 
certain weather criteria; namely, 50 percent chance of rain or 
temperatures below 40 or 50 degrees. 

What's happened, as you know, this went into effect 
February 15th. We've had, you know, rains and so forth, which 
we're fortunate for having, but it's put a lot of people out in 
the street. There's some 12,000 people affected. 

He's asking in the letter that you suspend those 
regulations and come up with something a little better that 
[iwould not close the Armories when there's a need for providing 
shelter for the homeless. 

I'm not asking for a response now, but look his 
letter over, and if you can respond when you come back before 
this Committee, I'll tell Assemblyman Filante that you'll be 
providing a response to the Committee. You might want to 
include him in your response as well. 

MR. GOULD: Very good. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Senator Mello, do you have any 
other questions? 

SENATOR MELLO: Well, we'll be getting a response 
from this. 

In looking over my notes, you had agreed to — I 
see a couple of notes here. Senator Bill Greene made some 
statements regarding Community Care Licensing. That's 
something we talked about. 

I think it should be noted that I asked a question 
last time, because I think the fact that you got appointed in 



80 
April, April 14th or something like that, many of these 
incidents that were cited by the Dobsons and other families 
happened before you came there. And I think the only one being 
— Dobson was November 24th of 1990, and one of them happened 
around the 4th of July, and that was just a few weeks after you 
were there . 

As far as the rest of those other statements, the 

point I want to ask you, I asked you to respond to those series 

!i 

of events. I did not see the copy, but I'll have my staff. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I read that. It's very 
specific and detailed, and it prompted me to inquire as to 
whether we're going to bring back the original witnesses, 
because it seems they were way off base. I think that the 
letter shows candor and thoroughness, and completely refuted 
the allegations made. 

And it troubles me, because they came in under the 

[banner of a violation of due process, which always interests 

ij 

me. I jump into fights that I normally wouldn't on the campus 

where it involves due process. 

Anyway, I think you should have an opportunity — 

SENATOR MELLO: I haven't read it. I just want to 
22 

point out, I think Senator Greene's statements were made out of 

frustration from some of his clients that have experienced some 

24 

of the things that have happened in the past. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



23 

! 
26 

27 

28 



You're aware of them, and my only hope is that 
these situations have to be corrected. I mean, there has to be 
due process. You can't bust into a community care facility, 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

" I 

12 



13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 

24 
25 

26 

27 
2S 



81 
remove all the patients at that moment. It has a more 
devastating effect on the patients in there than it does even 
the operators, not to minimize their effect. 

But the whole area of Community Care Licensing, and 
the whole area of care, custodial care, I think, really has to 
be looked at, and try to reflect what we in the Legislature, 
and also what you in your Department, feel is fair, and the 
kind of care that is deserving to the patients in there. 

MR. GOULD: Senator Mello, I couldn't agree with 
you more . 

I think Community Care Licensing is an area that 
we've paid a great deal of attention to. We've tried to look 
at the methods of the operation. And we believe we've made 
substantial improvements. 

I think I mentioned that last time I was before you 
that we had nine specific changes which we were going to 
incorporate, and we've incorporated some of those already. And 
I've had a number of meetings with providers, as has John 
Healy, who's interim Director for the Department. I think 
we're making good progress in making the whole system better. 

So, that's our endeavor and one thing we're going 
to do. And that's my commitment to you, that we will continue 
that effort. 

I feel I have to respond to some of the comments 
that Senator Greene made. 

I just want you to know that we have a very 
different recollection of the discussion I had with him. I 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 



82 
think that I clearly indicated that I would respond to 
inquiries; that I had my staff follow-up the day after the 
meeting, because the meeting ended about 7:00 o'clock at night, 
to make sure that we got any additional information. 

I responded to him in writing on two occasions that 
I was interested in any additional information. And I met with 
him personally and told him I will always look at any 
information that he or any other Member provides in order to 
ascertain if there are problems in programs. And I want you to 
know that's my ongoing commitment. I will do that, and that's 
just the way I will operate. 

I thought I had to say that. 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

14 

I did receive information from staff of Senator 



15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

ii 

23 
24 
25 
2b 
21 
28 



|!watson, who, I take it, was at that meeting as well, that she 
is in support of your confirmation. I just want to make that 

« , 

clear. 

II 

MR. GOULD: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I wanted to get the names and 
liaddresses of the prior witnesses so I can communicate with 
them. 

Frankly, I was very angry at the Department when I 
heard that testimony. Now I'm angry at the witnesses, and I 
want them to explain themselves. I think they owe it to all of 
us and to the public. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We haven't had a chance to touch 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 

2~> 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



83 
on a whole host of things, that's because you're going to be 
heading a very important Agency of state government. 

Obviously, one of the concerns that we all have is, 
we're looking to leadership from the Administration in the 
whole area of health insurance coverage, and what appears to be 
the depletion of our resource as far as health coverage is 
concerned. Trauma centers have, for all intentions, totally 
closed down. Emergency centers are closing down. The 
availability of health care to hundreds of thousands of 
Californians in just the last couple of years has decreased. 
Insurance costs are rising. 

Senator Petris has an innovative piece of 

legislation in this area. The Insurance Commissioner is coming 

up with another piece of legislation in this area. 
| 

But frankly, without the leadership of the 

Administration, it's going to all be for naught. So, we're 

looking for that. 

I'd like to hear, in a nutshell, what your plans 
are. 

We want to have -- I think all of us in the 
Legislature want to have the feeling that there is going to be 
leadership and drive in this area. It may not be a program 
that we necessarily agree with, but there has to be something 
where we're going to work together to arrive at a solution. 

MR. GOULD: Senator, let me respond to that. 

I had the opportunity to sit on a panel with 

1 1 

Senator Petris recently, and we got the opportunity to talk 



2 

3 

4 

5 : 

i 

6 

7 

8 | 

9 I 
10 

II 

12 

» I! 

14 i ! 

1 5 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



84 
about health care and the dilemma that California's facing. 

There's no question, when you find that there are 
nearly six million Californians without health care, that's 
unacceptable to all of us. We have got to find ways to 
increase access to quality health care, and affordable health 
care, to more Californians. 

Obviously, the economic circumstances that 
California finds itself in is something that can't be ignored, 
either. It becomes a factors in looking at any of the 
potential solutions in how we try to achieve better quality and 
accessible health care for Californians. 

As we look at alternatives — and you're quite 
correct. Both the Medical Association and the Insurance 
Commissioner have proposals out. Senator Petris has added to 
the discussion with, I think, a far-reaching approach in terms 
of different models of health care delivery for Californians. 

I think we have to look at all these proposals. 
And kind of the principles, if you will, that we will be 
iistarting from in the Health and Welfare Agency is, number one, 
ilhow do we make a substantial difference? How do we try to 
reach more Californians that are currently without health care? 

Secondly, to the extent that we may not be able to 
reach everyone, how do we ensure reaching priority populations? 
We're talking about women of childbearing ages, and children, 
and trying to make a real difference in terms of where we 
direct what limited resources we have if we're not able to move 
more broadly into a universal concept. 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 

S 
9 

K) 



85 
And I think in addition to that, we have to be very 
conscious about any change that we make at the state level in 
terms of some of the proposals that impose a payroll tax; other 
proposals have a mandate on employers. What are going to be 
the implications in terms of the jobs and economy on 
California? 

I think we're all sensitive to the fact that 
California has lost well over 600,000 jobs over the last couple 
of years. California is in competition not only with other 
states, but internationally. We have to look at the provision 
of health care and try to make a difference, at the same time 
!not putting ourselves in the situation where we might risk 

^employers and the creations of jobs in California. 

i 

We have taken a tact in the Health and Welfare 

Agency at this point of really focusing on priority 

populations. If you look at the AIM program last year, Access 

for Infants and Mothers, we provided increased medical care for 

■'pregnant women, as well as well baby care. We have also this 

year proposed a Check-up program, which is trying to provide 

II 
good primary preventative care for pre-schoolers. Trying to 

say that's a priority population, and make sure they're healthy 
22 I 

enough when they arrive in school that they can be very 

prepared to learn, because they are healthy. 

24 

We also recognize, and I believe there's 

25 

substantial opportunity to beyond some of these early 

26 

interventions that we've done, in terms of looking at insurance 

27 J 

reform, and other areas of cost containment, and other factors 

2S 



II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2b 

27 

28 



86 
which we think, blended together, can assist more people, 
including the small business market, which right now is one of 
the large areas which has dramatic levels of uninsured 
Calif ornians . When you look at the overall uninsured 
population, 90 percent of them have linkage to employment, 
either as being directly employed or being the dependents of 
employed people. 

So, we need to look at why small employers are not 
currently available -- availing themselves of insurance. Why 
are they being costed out of the market, which I think is the 
situation in many cases. And what can we do to try to 
influence the af fordability of health care. 

Obviously, when we look at this, it's something 
that if it was done on a national basis, if there was a 
national solution, it doesn't effect the competitive situation 
for our state, which might be embarking on trying to make a 
significant difference. So, we'll be watching very closely 
what's happening at the national level, but we can't stand 
still in California. We have to start making a difference. 

And even with the limited resources we have, we've 
made some very tough priority proposals within this year's 
budget that tries to carve out dollars for what we consider to 
be high-risk and very vulnerable populations. We want to make 
a good early intervention. 

But given the kind of year we're under, and I know 
you're all struggling with the same circumstances, we have had 
to cut many other services that have been with us for years and 



87 



'California citizens have relied on. 



2 

So, we have some tough choices, and those are some 



3 



of the parameters that we'll be looking at, trying to make a 

4 

difference. 



5 II 



7 

8 

9 

10 



13 
14 
I? 
16 
17 
IX 
19 

20 

i 

21 

i •> 

I 
23 

24 

i 
i 

25 

26 ; 

^7 
28 



We're going to continue to look at the proposals 

ithat are out there, and we want to work with the Legislature to 

jcome up with a solution that is both practical but really makes 

| a difference for improving the insurance and availability of 
i 
health care for more Calif ornians . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Gould. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I appreciate that. I'd like to 
continue the dialogue we had before at another time. 

I think you and the Governor should both be 
commended for opening up a lot of new initiatives, but not the 
welfare initiative. Let's say a lot of new ideas, to be more 
general. And I'd like to discuss those with you as well. 

The loss of jobs is of concern to all of us, but 
even those who go to Mexico in order to pay 85 cents an hour 
instead of $15, or $16, or $18, are going to a country that 
provides health care. They have their form of national health 
care insurance. So, they're not going to leave California to 
find a jurisdiction that has that particular disadvantage. 
They ' re going to have to pay for a health care system when they 
go there. They can afford it at 85 cents an hour. 

I've noted to some of the critics of my position 
that I don't know of any company that has made that decision 



88 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2b 

27 

28 



that has slashed the executives ■ salaries to make them 
commensurate with the 85 cents an hour. Huh-uh. In fact, 
they're getting bonuses because they're saving the company all 
that money. 

So, there's a lot of things we need to review. 

Prenatal care. I had a terrible time trying to get 
a few dollars out of the prior Administration for parts of my 
district which have the highest infant mortality rate in the 
country. Struck out every time. Now comes this Governor, 
jbefore I ever had a chance to meet with him and sit down, he's 
already proposing more money for prenatal care. I think that's 
imarvelous . 

I don't like the latest version because it takes 
money away from some other equally good program. I know we're 
strapped for money. 

But I'm encouraged by what you say, and I'd like to 
continue our discussions. 

MR. GOULD: I look forward to that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

One week from today is the 25th, and two weeks from 
today is April 1st. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are we going to meet on the 25th, 
Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, we're going to meet every 
Wednesday. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's a holiday. How can we meet? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What holiday? 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 

14 

II 
l| 

IS 
15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



89 

SENATOR PETRIS: Greek Independence Day! 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: How can I forget? 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's all right. I'll come to 
work anyway. It's okay. 

MS. MICHEL: It's the 25th, then the 1st, then the 
8th, and then spring break. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : We have to reach a resolution by 
the first at the very latest. 

Why don't we negotiate a little bit and have some 
conversations and see if this can be resolved. 

We'll put Mr. Gould's confirmation over on the call 
of the Chair. 

In the meantime, we do have some witnesses here on 
Dr. Coye ' s confirmation, so you get to stay in the hot seat. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman. 

In connection with the Gould confirmation, I 
realize we're putting it over. 

I'd like to have some information if this is still 
going to be an issue about this adjudicatory hearing. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, it will be. That's 
primarily what it's going to be. 

I would like to acquaint myself, frankly, on what 
all an adjudicatory hearing is. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: And along with that, what the 
obligations under existing law are for the Secretary. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, to what extent it's his 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
2b 
27 
28 



90 
^responsibility . I think that's a point well taken. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I think he's carried out his 
obligations, and he's asked to go further. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, that's a point well taken. 
The extent that it's within his jurisdiction. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: It'll probably be a combination 
jiof Office of Research and Leg. Counsel, I guess. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, we will ask SOR and 
Legislative Counsel to assist us in this matter. 

Thank you, Mr. Gould. 

MR. GOULD: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think we'd better take a 
break. I promised one by 4:00 o'clock, and it's quarter to 
five. We're going to take a five-minute break. 

Those witnesses who are here on Dr. Coye ' s 
confirmation will be allowed to testify, and then Dr. Coye ' s 
confirmation's going to be put over, too, for any number of 
reasons, but the most important is we won't have a chance to 
get through everything. 

So we're going to break for five minutes. 
[Thereupon a brief recess was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will come to 
order. 

We now have the confirmation of Dr. Molly Coye, 
Director of Health Services before us. 

Dr. Coye, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel you're 



I 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

,o I 
II 

n ji 

I 

13 

14 
15 

■« I 

17 
18 

19 

i 

20 

i 
i 

21 
2*7 

! 

24 j 

25 ! 

I 

26 
27 
28 



91 
iqualified to assume this position? 

DR. COYE: Thank you very much for the opportunity 
to appear before you. And knowing that it's very late this 
afternoon, and there are people who have been waiting for a 
long, I'll be very brief. 

As you know, I'm prepared both in medicine and in 
public health. I had my training, including training in 
jCalifornia, in those fields, and I've also worked as the 
Director of Health Services — the title was Commissioner — in 
New Jersey. That gave me extensive experience with an agency 
which, admittedly, was smaller, and problems which were smaller 
jlin scale than some of those that I'm facing now. 

But I've been very pleased to be offered the 

opportunity to work with the California Department of Health 

liand with Governor Wilson. And I believe that we have the 
I 
potential for real accomplishments, even in a very difficult 

budget period. And I believe that I would be qualified to take 

on that responsibility. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Very good. 

Do we have any witnesses here on Dr. Coye ' s 
appointment? Please come forward. 

MR. SANCHEZ: Thank you for allowing me the 
opportunity to speak. My name is Jonathan Sanchez. I'm the 
President of the California Hispanic Publishers Association, a 
statewide organization of Hispanic community newspapers which 
reaches over a million-and-a-half readers weekly. 

I was President and Chief Operating Officer of 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
2S 



92 

Eastern Group Publications, a chain of eight community 
bilingual newspaper in East and Northeast Los Angeles. 

I am not here to oppose the confirmation of 
Ms. Coye. I want to make that very clear. 

I am simply asking for her — for the delay and an 
opportunity to have more dialogue to begin to understand how 
she operates, and to assist her in doing outreach in the 
Hispanic community. I am quite concerned about that. 

I have great concerns that I believe need to be 
addressed before Dr. Coye is confirmed. Because of the state's 
need to reach Hispanics, the largest population group in 
California, I felt it was vital that on behalf of my 
association, and as a publisher, establish contact with Dr. 
Coye as soon as possible after Governor Wilson announced her 
selection for this post. 

However, after many attempts to establish this 
Ijcontact, the latest yesterday morning, I have become convinced 

;i 
i 

'jthat Dr. Coye may not -- and I say may not — be the 
appropriate person for this job. 

Because the members of my association and I are the 

ii 
only print media reaching almost two million readers per week, 

we are the primary source of information to these readers. We 

are talking about a population that now comprises almost half 

of the population of California. And to deny access to vital 

information to these residents should be of concern to all 

residents of the state. 

I believe the health of the future generation of 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



93 

the unborn is at stake. The continued health in the majority 
of the state's children is at stake. The primary health of the 
working poor is at stake. The public health of the state is at 
stake. 

Yet I have the feeling that Dr. Coye is not fully 
aware of the dynamics and the particular needs of the different 
Hispanic communities of the State of California. For example, 
when I tried to reach Dr. Coye to begin to establish a 
relationship between her Department and the members of my 
association, to try to begin an educational campaign regarding 
her Department's services in the different communities we serve 
across the state, I was put off and put off and put off, until 
I finally gave up and tried to reach her through other entities 
who had similar concerns, and the result was still the same. 

I believe Dr. Coye doesn't understand that a few 
ceremonial appearances here and there throughout the state does 
not complete awareness of a community make. In a meeting with 
Dr. Coye yesterday, she made several statements which convinced 
me of this fact. Statements like, "Well, I believe I've 
reached the Los Angeles area's clinics." To be specific, she 
was speaking about Altamed Health Services, which is fine. 
It's a great clinic. 

When we mentioned that San Fernando Valley and the 
clinics serving that area, and their need to establish a 
relationship with her, she said she had picked Los Angeles 
because the location was so close to the airport. But the 
Valley is served by a major airport, and I'm talking about 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 

1 
18 

19 ij 

20 

i! 

22 

j 

24 

i 
25 

26 

27 |j 
28 



94 

Burbank. In fact, when you think about it, it takes longer to 
go from East Los Angeles to the Valley than it does to fly from 
LAX to Sacramento. That's the size of the areas we're talking 
about . 

When discussing outreach methods used — being used 
by Health Services, we suggested print. She said she was quite 
happy with the way she was — she had been doing things, and 
that means radio, which in my mind implies Hispanics don't 
read. I know that to be untrue. 

We ' re talking about a gigantic budget that the 
State Department of Health Services set aside for outreach, and 
all — you know, all she cares about is radio. That's fine, 
but it's not enough. 

When I suggested the use of print, she replied that 
Health Services doesn't really have a need to publicize 
services . Because the Department already has so many people 
asking for services, we don't need to do any more outreach. 

The health problems we face today and the costs to 
take care of them are minimal compared to those of tomorrow if 
we don't act now. 

Let me close by reminding everyone that we have a 
moral, if not a legal, obligation to give equal access to 
information to all residents of California across the board. 
It's very scary to me when you're talking about public 
hearings, and these people who came forward who are totally 
educated, I'm in the media, so I have access to information, 
but it scares the heck out of me when I know that my people in 



I 



7 



95 
my community are not aware of the issues that are going on. 
They're not part of the process. 

By that I mean that vehicles — we need to begin to 
use vehicles that reach those communities. I believe that we 
are about the only source of information that these folks have. 
They don't read the metropolitan daily newspapers. When you're 
talking about holding public hearings on things that are going 
— issues that are going to affect our community, we're leaving 
them out. When we're talking about employment opportunity, we 
have, I think, suggestions, great suggestions, that might work. 

In terms — I'm a small employer. I cannot afford 
to give health insurance to my employees . But I have a 
suggestion. I believe that if we were to subcontract, or 
contract with community-based clinics for primary health care, 
it will work. It's got to work, because all it is — I mean, 
what ' s the worst that could happen to our employees and the 
kids? Common cold. 

The AIM program. The AIM program did not reach 
everyone, I'm sorry to say. A lot of people who call my office 
do not know. What is this AIM thing? 

The other thing is that if there are budgets to do 

outreach, to do paid advertising, we must use community 
23 

newspapers. We must include community newspapers. 

24 

I want to have — I guess I have to get dramatic in 



3 
4 

i 
6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 

I 

17 

18 ! 

19 

j 

20 ! 

21 
IT 



25 
26 

27 
2X 



order to get Dr. Coye ' s attention. And I hope to establish 

i 

'dialogue. Like I said, it's not that I -- I hope she gets 
confirmed. But I hope that she begins dialogue in that the — 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 

12 ! 

13 

14 

I 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 i 
28 



96 
what is being said out in the community is that Dr. Coye has a 
cavalier attitude. I don't want to believe that. 

I want — I want to make sure that she is open to 
dialogue. And I don't see any -- I think she has an excellent 
idea, excellent chance to talk to the communities through these 
community newspapers, because we have such a relationship, an 
intimate relationship with our readers. We're reaching almost 
two million readers a week here. 

So I'm just here, like I said, to delay — let me 
— I want a chance to be able to talk to Dr. Coye. I want her 
to have a chance to address these issues with our publishers, 
and thereby, we can begin to give equal access to information 
to our readers . 

Thank you very much for the time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. 

Are there any other witnesses 

MR. HITCHCOCK: I'll be very brief. My name is 
Doug Hitchcock. I'm the Executive Vice President of the 
California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. 

We feel that Dr. Coye is, by education by 
experience, extraordinarily, perhaps uniquely, qualified to 
I lead the Department of Health Services during these difficult 
times. And in the last year, she's shown a real creativity and 
a real interest and leadership in health policy and health 
[financing issues, and I strongly urge her confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IX 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
2X 



97 

Next witness. 

MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
my name is Charles Carey. I'm a member of the Executive Board 
and currently serve as Vice President of the California 
Association of Food and Drug Investigators, which is an 
association that represents all peace officers, rank and file 
peace officers, that are employed by the Department of Health 
Services . 

I thought it might be constructive for you to at 
least have some input from rank and file people who work for 
the State Department of Health Services. 

In the time that Dr. Coye has served as Director of 
the State Department of Health Services, she has demonstrated a 
readiness to meet with and learn from the rank and file 
employees who conduct the day-to-day business of the State 
Department of Health. This readiness to meet with us, and to 
give genuine consideration to our observations and proposals, 
is something new to many of us who have a long-standing 
relationship in the management-labor business with the State of 
California. In fact, it's a significant and exciting departure 
from the traditional management-labor, we-they relationship 
that we've become accustomed to. 

Dr. Coye ' s willingness to listen and act on the 
suggestions of those of us who work at that critical point 
where the government is in direct contact with the people 
cannot, in our opinion, help but have a positive, long-term 
effect on that relationship. 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

\9 

20 

21 

->2 

21 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



98 
Managing the Department of Health Services under 
;the current budget constraints has certainly been painful to 
all of us, but it has forced a healthy examination of programs 
and priorities, and remains a fiscal reality we must live with. 
Currently our association is working with Dr. Coye and her 
staff, exploring ways to improve and even expand public service 
and public protection without increased costs, and indeed, with 
savings to the taxpayers. 

Dr. Coye has affirmed in both her words and actions 
her strong commitment to public service. Most importantly in 
these times of general public disappointment with government, 

she has made it perfectly clear that she intends to improve the 

i 

responsiveness and the quality of the relationship between the 

Department of Health Services and the public we all serve as 

public employees. 

We strongly support Dr. Coye ' s confirmation, and we 
would urge you to make hers a speedy and uncomplicated 
confirmation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any other witnesses? 

Then, Dr. Coye, we'll let you respond, and then 
we'll put you over for — how long did we say, Nancy? 

MS. MICHEL: You haven't said. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: On the call of the Chair, but 
probably the first week in April. 

MS. MICHEL: Probably the first week after the 



3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
ii 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



break. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, the first week after the 
Easter break. 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I just make a brief comment? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I want to let the doctor know that 
I'm interested in three areas that I'll be asking you about. 
Maybe you can check those out ahead of time. 

One is the California Occupational Health program, 
which came out — there was legislation I carried in '85, and 
I'm interested in what's happening there. 

Access to health care generally. I've written to 
you about that . 

And the Prop. 99 program, the use of the funds 
through the various branches: education, the media, and so 
[forth. 

Okay? 

DR. COYE: Sure. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Fine, Doctor. Anything you 
would like to add? 

DR. COYE: No, I certainly want to thank very much 
the people who endorsed me for this position. 

I'd also like to comment that clearly, in terms of 

the first person who offered testimony, that my recollection 

1 
differs with much of the recent past, but I'd like to stress 

again both the fact that I have extensive experience working 



2 
3 

4 



5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 



23 i 

24 J 
25 

26 

27 
28 



100 
Iwith the Hispanic community, farmworker, and other clinic 
systems. I'm a strong supporter of primary care, and I do 
believe very firmly, and we have shown in a lot of our work in 
terms of outreach, that we do believe that the Hispanic 
community, the many different Hispanic communities throughout 
the state, are a critical target for the Department, an 
important piece of our work. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And in the next couple of weeks, 
if you could just talk to some of the operators of the various 
health clinics. I'm sure you do it on a regular basis. 

DR. COYE: Tomorrow afternoon, I'm meeting for 
three hours with some of our best primary care clinic leaders 
iin the state. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That would help the dialogue 

along. 

i 

DR. COYE: Yes. 

Thank you very much . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Doctor. 

Well, if you have nothing more to say, then that's 

fine. We'll see you in April. 

I 

DR. COYE: You'll call me? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll call you in April 
sometime, the Easter — 

MS. MICHEL: I would be April 22nd. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Great, and also for my own 
selfish reasons; I have an election to occupy my time. So, 
it'll probably be late in April, mid-April or late April. It 



I 

2 
3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



101 
may be April 22nd, and that's probably going to be the date. 

DR. COYE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Mr. William M. Pruitt, Member of the Youthful 
Offender Parole Board. 

Mr. Pruitt, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that's why you feel you're qualified 
ito assume this position? 

MR. PRUITT: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
[Committee, I believe that my background and experience makes me 
uniquely qualified for the position that I am here for today. 

I have 25 years of experience with the Los Angeles 
Police Department, and you don't spend that amount of time with 
the Department of that type without having a significant amount 
iof contact with youthful offenders and being able to gain a 
great deal of insight into some of the causes of crime as we 
know it today. 

I not only have been a commanding officer of 
detectives and having to enforce crime from the street level, 
but as the captain of a patrol division in the San Fernando 
Valley, I saw a mandate to meet with the people who have to 
live under these types of conditions, to assist them in solving 
jsome of the problems that have to do with youthful offenders. 

And I bring that expertise to the state government. 

> 

I feel that I have a goal to work with the Director of the 
Youth Authority, to use this background and experience to help 
management government at a more efficient level. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I I 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



102 

In 1988, I came to the state and honed my 
management skills further from a state perspective as a deputy 
secretary of the correctional agency, and I feel that as 
Chairman of the Board, I will continue to work as I have for 
the almost past year to try to enhance upon the position that I 
believe can help us all make state government a little bit 
more effective. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions? Is there anyone in the 
audience in opposition? 

Then, Mr. Pruitt, I think you're going to get off 



very easy 



confirmation 



Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Beverly moves 

i. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 



3 

4 
5 

7 
X 

10 J 

II 

12 

.3 ! 

14 ; ! 

15 

16 
17 
IX 

I! 

20 

21 



23 

- 4 
25 

2b 

27 

! 



103 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 
Congratulations . 
MR. PRUITT: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
5:20 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

\9 

20 

21 

2"> 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



104 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; 
that the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel 
or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand th: 



.. — , — . 

lis *^J_S_^k—— day of March, 1992. 





VELYN J. /MIZAK ^ 
Shorthand Reporter 



191-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $6.30 per copy plus 
current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1100 J Street, B-15 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Please include Senate Publication Number 191-R when ordering. 



soo 






HEARING 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



U 




pocuments dift, 

8AN FRANGIQVQ 



SfiftR**** 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1992 
2:15 P.M. 



OEPOSITOW^ 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



192-R 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 
i 

19 
20 
21 

22 

23 

1 

24 

|i 

S ' 

26 

27 
28 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25 , 1992 
2:15 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 
2 APPEARANCES 

? MEMBERS PRESENT 

4 SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chairman 

g SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

6 SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

7 SENATOR HENRY HELLO 

g MEMBERS ABSENT 

q SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chairman 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 



10 



12 
13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
IX 
IS) 

2o 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



JAMES C. DIAZ, SR., Chief 

Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services 

HARRY C. HALLENBECK, State Architect 

JAMES H. GOMEZ, Director 
Department of Corrections 

SENATOR ROBERT PRESLEY 

BARBARA G. SIANEZ, President 
California Visitor Cooperative 

PERRY KENNY, Civil Service Division Director 
California State Employees Association 

C. B. BRUCE, III, Former Chapter President 
CCPOA 

RAY FELDMAN, President 

International Brotherhood of Peace Officers 



Ill 
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) 



2 E.T. SNELL, aka E.T. the Clown 

Former Inmate, Department of Corrections 
3 

DENISE CHACON, Local Chapter President 
4 Patton State Hospital 

CCPOA 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 



12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 

24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



IV 



3 



6 

7 

X 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



23 



26 

27 



INDEX 



Proceedings 



4 

c Governor's Appointees; 



Page 



JAMES C. DIAZ, Chief 

Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services 

Department of Consumer Affairs 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Responsibilities of Bureau 2 

Motion 4 

Committee Action 4 

HARRY C. HALLENBECK 

State Architect 5 

Background and Experience 5 

Overview of Department 6 

Motion 7 

Committee Action 7 

JAMES H. GOMEZ, Director 

Department of Corrections 8 



Background and Experience 8 

Growth of Department 9 

Challenges and Goals 10 

Different Departments within Corrections 11 

Infectious Diseases 11 

24 Preventing Parolee Failure Program 11 

■> 5 Bay Area Services Network Program 12 

Responsibilities to Employees 12 

Workforce Make-up 12 

Issues to be Faced in 1990s 13 



2K 



2 Joint Rules Commendation 14 

- ; Witness in Support; 

4 SENATOR ROBERT PRESLEY, Chair 

Joint Legislative Prison Committee 14 



26 



2X 



Difficulty of Department's Huge Bureaucracy 15 
Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 



Implementation of Prison Inmate Labor 

8 Initiative of 1990 16 

9 Number of Jobs 17 

10 Goal for Future 17 

11 Location of Prison Jobs 18 

12 Witnesses in Opposition or with Concerns; 

13 BARBARA SIANEZ, President 

California Visitor Cooperative 18 

14 
15 
16 

17 

Will Cut Programs if Given Unallocated 

18 Budget Cuts 20 

19 Supportive of Visiting 20 

20 Possibility of Cutting Program 21 

21 Cost of Visiting Program 21 

22 Protection of Staff from Elimination 22 

23 Response by MR. GOMEZ 22 

24 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

25 Normal Visiting Program 22 



Opposition in Some Institutions 19 

Need to Expand Visiting Program 19 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 20 



Work Incentive Program Interference 

with Family Visiting 23 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 23 



VI 



PERRY KENNY, Civil Service Division Director 

California State Employees Association 24 

Direction of Department 25 

Elimination of Some Education Programs 25 

PERC Program 25 

Elimination of Vocational Program 

7 at Soledad 27 

8 Tuberculosis in Prisons 27 

9 Restriction of Access to Unions 27 

10 Response by MR. GOMEZ 28 

11 PERC Program 28 

12 Reduction of Education Programs 29 

13 Potential Mandatory Testing for TB 30 

14 Redirected Resources 31 
is Access Problems 32 



16 Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

17 Disproportionate Education Cuts 

at Soledad 32 

18 

Rights of Unions to Access 34 

19 

C.B. BRUCE, III, Former Chapter President 
20 CCPOA 35 

2i Wrongful Termination of Officers 35 

22 Response by MR. GOMEZ 37 

23 Review of Material 37 

24 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

25 Personnel Action on Terminations 38 

26 View of State Personnel Board 38 
27 

28 



Vll 



RAY FELDMAN, President 

International Brotherhood of Peace Officers 39 

Refusal to Honor Signed Agreements 40 

Inappropriate Adverse Actions 40 

List of Wrongs 40 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 46 

Adverse Action Task Force 46 



E.T. SNELL, aka E.T. the CLOWN 
9 Former Inmate, Department of Corrections 46 

10 Need for Reform 47 

11 Concern for TB 4 8 

12 Need for Bail Reform 48 

13 System not Working 4 9 

14 DENISE CHACON, Local Chapter President 
Patton State Hospital 

1-5 CCPOA 49 

16 Initial Contact with Appointee 50 

17 Joint Legislative Budget Committee Hearing 51 

18 Concerns about Safety and Security 51 

19 Response of Director Inaccurate 51 

20 Involvement in Federal Litigation against 
Department 52 

21 

Retaliation Due to EEO Complaint 52 

22 

Offer to Relocate 53 

23 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 
24 

Nature of Harassment 54 

25 

Issue of Harassment Still Unresolved 54 

26 

Precluded from Accessing Employees 55 

27 

28 



Vlll 



2 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

3 Status of Harassment Situation 55 

4 Official Findings on Retaliation 55 

5 Response by MR. GOMEZ 56 

6 Reduction of Positions at Patton 56 

7 EEO Complaint 57 

8 Finding of Insufficient Adverse 

Action against Offenders 57 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



26 

27 



Position on Disrepectful Behavior 57 

Director's Order to Stop Harassment 58 

Department Policy on Harassment 58 

Reduction of Positions 59 

Director's Action on EEO Complaint 61 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Findings of Associate Warden's Report 61 

Dereliction of Duty by Current Director 62 

Action Taken by MR. GOMEZ 63 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 63 

Material Reviewed 63 

Letters to MR. DENNINGER, Chief Deputy Director 64 



Investigation by Female Program 

22 Administrator 64 

23 Response by MR. GOMEZ 65 

24 Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 



Former Laxness of Enforcement in 

Department of Corrections 65 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Follow-up after Verbal Reprimands 66 



XX 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Lack of Further Complaints 66 

Background at Other Institutions 66 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 66 

Need for Workers to Respect 

Each Other 66 

Ten-year Project 67 

Women in Law Enforcement 67 

Need to Root out Old Attitudes 68 

Questions by SENATOR ROBERTI re: 

Reducation of Positions Creating Hazard 69 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 69 

Opinion of Hospital 69 

Need to Contact Harassing Individuals 70 

Testimony at Joint Legislative Budget Committee 71 

Requests of Committee Members 71 

No Walkaways Due to Luck Only 71 

Lack of Communication with Director 71 

Responses by MR. DENNINGER to Letters 72 

Attempts to Resolve Issue 72 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 72 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Number of Meetings with Director 73 

Number of Telephone Conversations 

with Director 7 3 

Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Intent to Put Over Confirmation of 

MR. GOMEZ until Full Committee is Present 74 

Discussion 75 



2 Intent to Put Over DR. MAYER 77 

3 Termination of Proceedings 77 

4 Certificate of Reporter 78 

5 
6 

7 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 



i 
19 



20 

21 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
28 



1 
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : James C. Diaz, Chief, Bureau of 
Collection and Investigative Services. 

Will you please come forward, Mr. Diaz, and we'll ask 
you what we ask all the Governor's appointees, and that's why 
you feel qualified to assume this position? 

MR. DIAZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you 
to seek confirmation to the position of the Chief of the Bureau 
of Collection and Investigative Services. 

Prior to coming to state government, I have served in 
a variety of roles in the private and the public sector. As 
Director of Human Resources, and previously as Director of 
Executive Services for Pacific Telesis Group, my experience has 
included managing limited resources in a business environment 
which demanded awareness of consumer and public policy issues. 

I believe each of you have a copy of my remarks. 

In addition, public service has played a major role 
in both my professional and personal life. Most recently as the 
Chairman and founding Chairman of the Hispanic Community Fund of 
the Bay Area, Chairman of the City of Cerritos Planning 
Commission and founding President of the Encinitas Town Council, 
I've taken an active role in a number of positive developments 
within my community. 

In regards to law enforcement, my experience, I 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



2 

served ten years in a voluntary capacity with the Clayton Police 
Department, retiring in last in 1989 as Lieutenant of its 
Reserve Division. 

Some information on the Bureau, what it does. The 
Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services is responsible 
for licensing and regulating nine major industries. They range 
from collection agencies to repossessors, alarm companies, 
private investigators, private patrol operators, and locksmiths. 
Since my appointment as Chief, the Bureau has actively pursued a 
cost effective, proactive campaign to promote consumer 
awareness. We've been an advocate of consumer protection while 
maintaining a positive image and an open communication with the 
industries which we license and regulate. 

The Bureau has answered the call for consumer 
protection in the security guard industry by taking steps to 
upgrade the training criteria for security guards, while at the 
same time, providing a more competent and professional industry 
standard. 

The mission of the Department of Consumer Affairs is 
to, quote: 

"Protect and empower the consumer, 
while supporting a fair and 
competitive marketplace, " 
unquote. As part of the Department, the Bureau strongly 
supports a philosophy that emphasizes public protection. For 
example, we recently negotiated with the locksmith industry 
changes that will not only set a precedence in the consumer 



4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
->*> 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



3 

protection area, but will enhance the industry as well. 

In addition, we are currently working with industry 
members representing the collection agencies on statutory 
changes which will result in proposed legislation that 
emphasizes consumer rights and increased enforcement of 
regulatory powers. 

Finally, I'm honored to be here today before you as 
a part of the new generation of consumerism. As a member of 
Jim Conran ' s team on — of dedicated individuals, I will strive 
to successfully implement and reinforce the Department's 
commitment to the public. Under my direction, the Bureau will 
continue to address and take action on private security and 
collection issues affecting the consumer advocates and 
residents of California. 

I thank you, and I'm pleased to answer any of your 
questions . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any discussion or debate? Any 
questions of Mr. Diaz? 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 

Just a second, Mr. Diaz. Now you may be getting 
off easy, but I want to make sure I don't miss anything. 

I don't have any opposition in my file, and I was 
looking for it. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't have any questions of 
Mr. Diaz. 

Do I hear a motion? 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 
~>~> 

23 
24 

25 
26 

27 
2X 



4 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move approval. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves that 
Mr. Diaz's confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. DIAZ: Thank you. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative items 
on the agenda. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is James H. 
Gomez. We're waiting for Senator Presley. 

The next appointment is Harry C. Hallenbeck, State 
Architect . 



13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



5 

Mr. Hallenbeck, we'll ask you what we ask all the 
Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel you're 
qualified to assume this position? 

MR. HALLENBECK: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. 
I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you, and I hope 
that I can answer that question for you. 

In preparation for the hearing, I presented my 
personal portfolio, which characterizes some 35 years of 
private practice as an architect. 

I actually started my career in the construction 
industry, working for five or six years with various entities 
within the construction industry — a large steel fabricator in 
San Francisco; and a builder-developer in the East Bay — which 
gave me a very good and practical understanding of the 
construction side, both estimating and design. 

Then I returned to architecture and went through 
the various firms of internship, evolving eventually to 
ownership of my own firm. It has offices in Alameda and in San 
Diego . 

During the time of some 35 years, I have worked in 
projects of almost every imaginable category: individual 
houses, multi-family to high rise condos, industrial buildings, 
corporate headquarters offices, some schools, and some medical 
facilities. So, that's given me a pretty good base of 
understanding of both the design and the construction side of 
the industry. 

Also during my career, I've had the opportunity to 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



6 
be very active in the American Institute of Architects. I have 
held most every major office, from local, state, to national. 
I had the opportunity as President of the California American 
Institute of Architects, the California Council, moving their 
state headquarters from San Francisco to Sacramento and setting 
up their entire governmental relations program in the early 
•80s. 

After that, I had six years at national as a board 
member and Treasurer. I had the opportunity there to work with 
and analyze and, in fact, institute significant changes in 
their budgetary system, and in their method of delivering 
services to their membership. And I think that that, perhaps, 
is an effective membership service cost-effectiveness of 
operation improvement for a fairly large bureaucratic — 25 
million, 20 million portfolio investments -- and was a 
significant effort from their perspective. And it was really a 
matter of trying to improve the delivery of services to the 
membership. That's probably the reason that the profession 
recommended my nomination and appointment. 

Since coming on board with the state in July, I've 
had an opportunity to look at OSA ' s overall operation in a 
general way, and to become intricately involved in some 
specific and critical projects, programs, that are going on. 

My style is relatively hands-on, to get involved in 
what's happening and see if we can't find some way of 
improving it. My simple overview at this point in time is that 
we need a stronger orientation to servicing our clients. I 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2! 
->-> 

23 

24 
25 
26 

27 
2X 



7 

bring that orientation to the Office from my background. I'm 
goal-oriented and feel that there's opportunity here, certainly 
there's a challenge, and I look forward to being involved in 
that. 

With that, perhaps I could answer some questions 
that you might have. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Hallenbeck. 

Are there any questions? 

Is there any opposition in the audience? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'm prepared to move, Mr. 
Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves 
confirmation be recommended to the Floor. 

Is there discussion or debate? Hearing none, 
Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is three to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

14 

20 

21 
•>i 

23 
24 
25 
2h 
27 
2H 



8 

MR. HALLENBECK: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The next appointment is that of 
Mr. James H. Gomez, Director of the Department of Corrections. 

Senator Presley is here. 

Will the Sergeant check to see if there is anybody 
in the hallway who would like to be here for this confirmation. 

Mr. Gomez, we'll ask you the same question we ask 
all the Governor's appointees, and that is why you feel you're 
qualified to assume this position? 

MR. GOMEZ: Thank you very much. 

It's a pleasure to come before you today — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: There's no objection to a 
photographer, I take it. So, without objection, Senator Mello 
moves and such will be the order. 

Yes. 

MR. GOMEZ: I come to you today with 21 years of 
governmental experience. I've been in an appointed position 
since 1976. I've had the pleasure of being appointed by three 
Governors in a row: Governor Jerry Brown in 1978; Governor 
Deukmejian in 1983; and Governor Pete Wilson in 1991. 

I've also been appointed by the Santa Clara County 
Executive in 1989. 

I believe that the kinds of experiences and 
background that I possess are those that are needed for the 
Director of Corrections. I have a tremendous background in the 
area of financial management. I spent nine years in state 
government, responsible for a state budget in excess of $6.5 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 

25 
26 



9 
billion. 

In 1978, Governor Brown appointed me the head 
social worker of the State of California. Although my 
background was not in social work, I went on to lead the reform 
of Children's Services in the State of California, the reform 
of In-home Supportive Services for aged, blind, and disabled 
citizens in the State of California. That experience gave me a 
tremendous insight into the problems and needs of the citizens 
of California. 

in 1983, I was fortunate enough to be selected as 
the Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections, 
clearly a Department in crisis in 1983. I assumed that job 
with 8,000 employees as the Chief Deputy Director and served 
under two Directors. 

From 1983 to 1989, the Department grew from 8,000 
employees to 25,000 employees. It grew from 35,000 inmates to 
92,000 inmates, a tremendous growth pattern. And I believe as 
Chief Deputy Director, I was very much responsible in keeping 
that Department from exploding and from a very difficult period 
of time. 

In 1989, I was offered the opportunity to move to 
Santa Clara County as the Deputy County Executive for Ms. Sally 
Reed, the County Executive in that County, and an opportunity 
to serve almost two years as the Deputy County Executive in 
Santa Clara County, which I believe also gives me a different 
perspective on the requirements for the Department of 
Corrections . 



3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 



26 



->7 



2K 



10 

I think this unique background, coming to the 
Department of Corrections as the Director, provides me an 
opportunity that few have been afforded in state service. I 
believe I possess those qualities of energy, drive, and 
commitment that is necessary to direct a 29 , 000-person 
organization. 

So far, I've been to 22 prisons. I've walked 
first, second, and third watch at all hours of the day. I've 
been to all four parole regions, shook over 7,000 hands, and 
talked to a tremendous number of staff within the Department of 
corrections . 

Within that tour, it points out a tremendous number 
of challenges. I believe the reason I came back to Sacramento 
was I believe the Department of Corrections has some of the 
toughest challenges in all of state government. I have a 
philosophy that I'm responsible for public safety as my first 
goal. Staff safety is the second goal, and inmate programs is 
the third goal. I'm responsible for a $2.6 billion budget, 
29,000 employees, 103,000 inmates, and 85,000 parolees. It's a 
tremendous and awesome responsibility. Within that role, I 
have responsibilities for doctors, for teachers, for clerical 
staff, for 17,000 uniformed staff. And I believe I have the 
capacity and capability and the leadership abilities to direct 
that mammoth organization. 

It requires a tremendous amount of budget setting 
and priority setting to understand the complexities of the 
Department of Corrections. 



13 

14 

15 

16 
17 
IK 
19 
20 
21 



26 



2h 



11 

I believe the Department of Corrections in the '80s 
will be known as the Department that built the California 
prison system. Construction was the key watch-word in the 
1980s. 

In the 1990s, I hope to focus on program 
development, communication, and automation for the Department, 
to try and bring us into the 1990s. 

I think you'll find out that a department as large 
as the Department of Corrections is much more than a prison 
system. I have a health care system, education system, and 
those are high priorities to me . I've spent a tremendous 
amount of time on medical and psychiatric care, as the 
California prison system has had some significant problems in 
those areas . 

I've also spent a tremendous amount of time on 
infectious disease. This country is dealing with some of the 
most difficult problems in TB, HIV, and communicable diseases 
that we have to deal with. In any administrative environment 
where we're keeping people 24 hours a day, the complexities of 
the infectious disease problem multiply. 

In 1991, I established a Communicable Disease 
Section at a million and a half dollar cost by redirecting 
staff, because I felt it was such a significant priority. As 
you well know, the state is not awash in money, and I've had to 
make those priority decisions out of existing resources. 

I think another program I'm quite proud of is the 
Preventing Parolee Failure Program. In 1989, the Department of 



8 
9 
10 
1 1 
12 
13 
l-i 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 

24 
25 

26 
2~ 
28 



12 
Corrections was revoking 67 percent of all parolees to the 
Department of Corrections. That is a tremendous cost, but it 
also has a good public safety impact. We've been able, through 
improved decision making and providing employment counselors 
and services in our parole offices, in less than a year and a 
half to reduce that to 40 percent, which has had an impact of 
savings of over $40 million on the state General Fund just in 
the current year. 

I've also been also to implement the Bay Area 
Services Network Program, the first time that the Department of 
Corrections has developed a drug abuse program at the local 
level with County Drug and Alcohol Departments. Once again, 
it ' s the kind of program I think is needed for the Department 
of Corrections, the size we are, and I think I have the 
capacity and capability to implement those kinds of programs. 

In addition to that, I have a tremendous 
responsibility as the number one employer of state government. 
With 29,000 employees, I have a tremendous responsibility to 
African-Americans, to Hispanics, and to women in this state. 
And I think I have the kind of caring and commitment to equal 
that challenge. We currently have a workforce in the 
Department of Corrections of 16.4 percent Black, and 18 percent 
Hispanic. The appointments that I have made in the exempt 
positions over the past 11 months represent 17 percent African- 
American employees, and 21 percent Hispanic employees. 

In 150 years in the Department of Corrections, 
there has been one woman warden -- in 150 years, there's been 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

ii 

21 



26 

27 
2* 



13 

one woman warden of a male institution. In 11 months, I've 
appointed two women to head a male institution. And I think 
that's a move in the right direction. 

I think what else I bring to this Committee is, I'm 
a caring individual. I provide 110 percent all the time, and I 
think that makes a difference. I believe I understand the 
needs of the majority of line staff, support staff, and 
management. And I have a caring enough attitude that I want to 
listen, and I want to hear. 

That does not mean that 29,000 employees agree with 
Jim Gomez. I want to make clear they do not. 

But I believe that I have the capacity and the 
leadership capability to direct this Department in that area. 

I think the issues that we'll be facing most 
importantly in the 1990s will be the issues of respect, abuse 
of power, and cultural change in the Department of Corrections. 
I hope over a five to ten year period to see us as a Department 
that cares more about its own staff; that staff treat each 
other well, rather than treating each other poorly. The 
management staff has a better ability to effectively deal with 
each other. 

I think as a last item, I've implemented a 
significant change in compassionate release policy in this 
state to deal with individuals who have significant medical 
conditions, whether they be AIDS-related, cancer, or otherwise. 
At the same time, I've taken into account the needs of victims 
in each and every one of these individual circumstances, as the 



8 
10 



13 

14 
1? 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



24 
25 
2h 
27 
28 



14 
rights of victims are equally important to the rights of those 
that have been incarcerated. 

Lastly, I will say that I'm an administrator. I'm 
not a politician. I've been appointed by three separate 
Governors . 

I had the opportunity last night to listen to you 
speak at Bob Hanna ' s retirement. And at that hearing — at 
that retirement, you made a comment, and I bring back to you in 
humor. Not many people get a Joint Rules Commendation from 
both sides. I proudly display on my wall Joint Rules 
legislation — Joint Rules Number 370, signed by the Honorable 
David Roberti and Willie Brown, which reflects to me a 
recognition that, as a Director and a nonpolitical individual, 
I have the capacity to go over both sides of the aisle and 
effectively deal with people. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thanks for reminding me. 
[Laughter. ] 

MR. GOMEZ: Now I'd like Senator Presley to have an 
opportunity to say a few words before I answer any questions 
the Committee may have. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Presley. 

SENATOR PRESLEY: Mr. Chairman, how do you get one 
of those resolutions? I'll get in line. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PRESLEY: I'm here, Mr. Chairman and 
Members, in my capacity as Chairman of the Joint Legislative 
Prison Committee, which has had oversight over the Department 



4 
5 

6 

7 
8 

10 



13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



15 

of Corrections, the Youth Authority, and all that, for the last 
about 10-12 years now. 

I first met Mr. Gomez when he was with the 
Department of Social Services in the Children's Services area. 
I've worked with him in that capacity, and further, then, 
through, I guess, a couple of -- at least a couple of wardens 
-- Directors, rather, of the Department, and recommended his 
appointment to Governor Wilson as Director of Corrections. 

And having said all that, I had to think quite long 
and hard about what my position was going to be when Mr. Gomez 
came up for confirmation. And after a good deal of thought on 
that, I decided that he merits support, and it's not absolute. 
We've had a number of discussions where we think, and other 
people think, that things ought to be done better and 
differently. And generally Mr. Gomez agrees. But as has been 
the problem with directors, it's very, very hard to implement. 

That's a big bureaucracy; very difficult to deal 
with. I sometimes think it would take a Superman to do that 
job appropriately. 

And in addition to the large bureaucracy, and an 
entrenched bureaucracy in many cases, that he has to deal with, 
his guests are there involuntarily. They don't want to be 
there. And he has 102,000 of them, and it's 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week. It ' s a very, very difficult job. 

So, my feeling is that he's qualified. He's 
energetic. He certainly works hard at the job. And I think as 
we work with him over the next few years, hopefully, we can 



13 

14 
1? 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



16 
make a number of improvements that I, frankly, think need to be 
made in the Department of Corrections. It's in need of a lot 
of work and a lot of improvement. 

I wanted to come in my capacity as the Chairman of 
that committee to support him, and so that over the next few 
years, we can work to continue to improve one of the bigger 
bureaucracies, and one that's consuming a big chunk of the 
state budget nowadays, and one we're all concerned about. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No question about it. 

SENATOR PRESLEY: I think he ' s a Director that will 
do well with everyone's help. He needs a lot of help. This is 
a very difficult job. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator Presley. 

I think what we're going to do is, we're going to 
break for five minutes, then we'll have a whole host of 
questions for you, Mr. Gomez. 

The Senate Rules Committee is recessed for five 



minutes . 



[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Senate Rules Committee will 



reconvene. 



We are hearing the appointment of James H. Gomez as 
Director of the Department of Corrections . 

Mr. Gomez, there have been some concerns about the 
implementation of the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, 
which, I might point out, I didn't support, but it's the law of 
the land and we have to make sure it's implemented. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
2? 
26 

27 
28 



17 

How many private enterprises have taken advantage 
of this opportunity? 

MR. GOMEZ: We have three currently. We have one 
at Tower Communications at CRC. It's a phone answering service 
working out of the Los Angeles area. 

We have one at San Quentin and one at Folsom, both 
coming up dealing with data processing. 

In addition to that, we have one that's close to 
contract which is a glass manufacturer at CIM. 

At this point in time, it's less than 100 jobs that 
we're talking about, but given the economic conditions that we 
are in, it's a very difficult time — period of time to be 
doing job development. But I think that we've been somewhat 
successful i bringing in data processing and communication 
groups, and we also have able at CRC to present quite a few 
checks to victims' groups down there, which comes from the 
restitution component of that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Can you tell me roughly how many 
jobs? 

MR. GOMEZ: About 50 right now, but it will be a 
hundred within probably a month or two. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What is your goal, say, by the 
end of the year? 

MR. GOMEZ: I don't have a specific goal. I would 
really like to see a thousand jobs within a four-year period. 
It's been a longer range goal. 

I am optimistic that, as economic conditions 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

! 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 

21 



24 

25 
26 

27 
2S 



18 
change, and the labor force is not in such -- such large supply- 
out in the street, that at that time we may be more in demand. 

But with the current economic conditions, the 
demand — there's so many unemployed people out there, that 
they're finding a full labor force. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Is that pretty much dispersed 
among the various prisons, where the jobs are? 

MR. GOMEZ: No, it appears that the — that so far, 
the concentration is centering around the Los Angeles, the Bay 
Area, and Sacramento. Most of the remote locations, private 
industry is not coming in, and it's not really enamored at all 
with either Pelican Bay, or Chuckawalla, or Avenal . Those 
facilities are 200-300 miles away from metropolitan centers. 
Because of distance of transportation, you're seeing very 
little interest in those areas. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any other questions? 

Is there anyone here in support? How about 
opposition? 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: Can we have a neutral category? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, we often do, yes. They 
usually come up with opposition, but we understand. 

Why don't we do that first, people who want to 
evidence concerns. 

MS. SIANEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Barbara 
Sianez. I'm with the California Visitor Cooperative — I'm the 
President -- also known as CVC. 

Our organization is devoted to improving the 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 

12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
IS 
19 

20 



23 

24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



19 
experience of visiting those loved ones in our California State 
Prisons. Our method of doing this is by educating visitors as 
to their rights and proper recourse within the Department of 
Corrections . 

As our name implies, we strive to cooperate with 
members of the Department of Corrections, and we encourage 
others to do so in hopes to make the visiting process an easier 
one. 

CVC has existing now for one year, and 
unfortunately, we have met with opposition from a few 
institutions. For instance, Folsom State Prison has denied our 
request for distributing our monthly newsletters and literature 
in the visitor parking lot. This would be after visiting 
hours. It was stated that it would possibly be disruptive to 
normal operations. 

We feel this is a denial of our rights under the 
First Amendment and other fundamental rights protected by the 
Constitution and may cause unnecessary litigation to resolve. 

Mr. Gomez, as a group of concerned families and 
friends of prisoners, we sincerely hope that the recognition of 
the extreme value of visiting will discourage you in seeking 
any monetary relief by cutting back visiting hours any further. 
Instead, this vital program desperately needs to be expanded on 
and encouraged. After all, it is one of the most effective 
programs that CDC offers that contributes to positive prison 
behavior and community ties for successful parole. 

We look forward to an open door policy with you, 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1? 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



20 
and I would like to leave you a few samples of our newsletter. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Could you respond? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes. 

I'm a supporter of the visiting program. I always 
have been, and I always will be. 

The issue of distributing the newsletters is news 
to me, and I'll take a look at it and get back to her. 

On the issue of further cuts, I'm a very plain- 
spoken man. If I get unallocated cuts, I will cut visiting. I 
will cut academic education. I will cut medical. I will cut 
everything that I have to . 

I took $140 million budget cut last year, and I did 
not cut visiting. I did not cut medical. I cut and 
eliminated over 600 jobs. I postponed opening two prisons. 

But I need to be very clear with Senate Rules and 
any other committee, and my budget committees that I testify, 
if I take further unallocated cuts, I have no choice but to cut 
back on those areas that I believe I have some flexibility. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Last year you didn't take any 
cuts in — 

MR. GOMEZ: Visiting, no. But I got — I'm honest 
with you. I am on the edge. I believe I have taken this 
Department, in terms of safety and security, very close to the 
edge. 

I understand the need for visiting. I'm very 
supportive of visiting. I think it's a very good outlet for 
the inmates. It's very good to have their family connections, 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



21 
and it's positive for re-integration back into our society. 

But if I get specific cuts, I can deal with it. If 
I get $110 unallocated reduction in my budget in a conference 
committee, telling me, "Do whatever you need to do, but do it, " 
I've been telling my budget committees and everywhere else, 
those kind of reductions are going to have to be taken out of 
program areas . 

So, I want to be clear. I have no intent. The 
Governor's budget as it currently exits has no reductions to 
visiting. I have proposed none. I do propose none. 

But in the event that some unallocated cuts come 
out of the sky, I will have to deal with that issue. Visiting 
will be a program that I will have to look at. 

We currently offer visiting in most institutions 
five days a week. CYA and most institutions offers it two days 
a week. 

I would have to look at peeling back a day here, a 
day there. I would have to look at -- urban locations tend to 
have much heavier visiting -- the Folsom Prisons, the 
Vacavilles, the San Quentins -- heavy visiting. The rural 
locations — Pelican Bay, Chuckawalla -- much light visiting. 
So, I would probably look, from a budgetary standpoint, of 
cutting at the rural locations first. 

But I should add, the cost of visiting is the cost 
of custody staff. We have to have custody staff to process 
people in, custody staff that watch the visiting. And when I 
talk about cutting visiting, what I ' d be talking about is 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
->-> 

24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



22 

eliminating those posts and those jobs from a certain day 
because of the cost of them. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Fine. Thank you very much. 

Do you have any other observations? 

MS. SIANEZ: It's my understanding that staff would 
not be eliminated but put elsewhere in the institution, 
correct? Because they are protected as far as their jobs. 

MR. GOMEZ: I have over — they are nnot protected 
as far as their jobs. 

I have almost 2800 vacancies in the Department of 
Corrections. If I take a significant budget reduction coming 
up, I will be in a layoff position. I will be in a layoff 
position for correctional officers; I'll be in a layoff 
position for teachers; I'll be in a layoff position for 
clerical staff. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What is the normal visiting, 
say, at Folsom? What is the normal? 

MR. GOMEZ: Five days a week, about a six-hour day. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, five days a week for a six- 
hour period? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes. 

And most of our institutions, our new institutions, 
they have four or five visiting rooms, because they're built in 
facilities. They're huge, huge prisons. And so, I need 
typically three to four staff for each one of those visiting 
areas: one to do searches as they come in; one to check for 
the appropriateness of whether they have clearance or not; one 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



23 

for custody. We also have family visiting going on in the 
trailers during the weekends where I have staff monitoring 
those. 

When those positions are cut, people say, "Oh, 
those are correctional officers." Those aren't correctional — 
those are correctional officers providing a program service. 
And if I have to make those kind of reductions, I'll have to 
take a look at providing correctional officers providing 
program services . 

MS. SIANEZ: I would like to point out that I've 
been visiting for the past eleven years, and when I first 
started out, we had seven-day a week visiting. 

It must be noted that when prisoners work, they're 
under the Work Incentive Program. They get two days off of 
that week, and that's by the design of that job, not by the 
family's ability to be there, and so it does present a hardship 
when, say, Pelican Bay or Tehachapi is limited to weekend-only. 
It pretty much takes away that incentive to work because that 
means not seeing your family. 

MR. GOMEZ: I fully understand. I just want to be 
honest in terms of letting you know that if those kind of 
budget reductions take place, and I don't want to assure this 
Committee they're not going to, I have to react to it. 

Last year I was given it all unallocated, with no, 
"cut this; cut that," just "do whatever you need to do, and 
tell us about it later." 

I did that, and made all those policy choices and 



6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
2? 
24 
25 
2ft 
27 
28 



24 
priority decisions, and I will stand behind them. But it makes 
it very difficult when you need — when you have those programs 
that are existing. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think it's important for us to 
hear, because it puts a perspective on things we don't normally 
hear. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. SIANEZ: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, next. 

MR. KENNY: Good afternoon again. It's late. 

Mr . Chairman and Committee Members , my name is 
Perry Kenny. I speak on behalf of 5700 employees in the 
Department of Corrections who are represented by the state — 
California State Employees Association. I presently serve as 
the Civil Service Division Director, and also I work in the 
Department of Corrections in my regular job as a state prison 
teacher at North Facility. 

Director Gomez and I share a unique relationship. 
As a correctional educator, he is my department director at my 
regular work site. 

My concerns about Mr. Gomez, or any other Director 
of CDC, are rooted in my direct knowledge of prisons, and in 
the experience our union has had in working to improve 
conditions for our correctional employees. 

I want to thank at this time the Senate Rules 
Committee for allowing me this opportunity to state for the 
record our union's position regarding the confirmation of 



3 

4 

S 

6 
1 

S 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



25 

Mr. Gomez. 

CSEA has specific concerns about this Director and 
the direction that Corrections has been heading since his 
appointment last year. I've met with Mr. Gomez on more than 
one occasion, and we've had very cooperative, meaningful 
conversations. While we are optimistic about his recent 
willingness to discuss education reform and his overall view of 
employees in the Department with CSEA, there are still a number 
of troubling development have have occurred on his watch. 

To date, these concerns revolve around, number one, 
the elimination of some correctional education programs; the 
spread of tuberculosis in prisons; and the illegal restrictions 
put on CSEA's access to its own members employed by 
Corrections. Let me elaborate on these issues. 

To begin with, education. In conversation with 
Mr. Gomez, he has declared support for the education program, 
yet we must ask what is Mr. Gomez's true commitment to prison 
education? 

Under former Corrections Director James Rowland, 
CSEA worked in a labor/management coalition to develop and 
implement an innovative prison education program called 
Personal Responsibility Curriculum, known by the acronym PERC . 
This prison education program appeared to have great potential, 
but since with the end of Mr. Rowland's tenure as Director of 
Corrections, the PERC program has been delayed and relatively 
is dead in the water at the present time. 

In a more recent meeting with Mr. Gomez, he told me 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



26 
he would support reviving the PERC program at -- in at least 
one prison. We feel the go-slow approach -- this go-slow 
approach will eventually subvert and undermine the potential 
effectiveness of this program. 

The need to rehabilitate California prison inmates 
in its vastly overcrowded, high cost system requires very 
aggressive action. The PERC program is an educational process 
whereby inmates learn how to think, how to break their cycle of 
violence, and become productive citizens. PERC is based on a 
prison education program developed in Canada, and this Canadian 
program has proven to be very effective. It slashed recidivism 
there in that country. 

The PERC program is dynamic, and we believe it 
needs direct, hands-on support for its true success. The high 
recidivism that presently exists in our prisons costs 
California precious funds, a crucial issue, especially in this 
recurring budget crisis that we face. And that's a fact. Yet, 
according to the Department of Finance, only 25 percent of the 
Department of Corrections' operating budget of nearly $2.5 
billion is spent on the prison education programs. 

We understand that money is tight, and that we're 
in a deficit situation, but we seriously have to ask whether 
the present Corrections ' policy is committed to expanding the 
education programs that, in the long run, save taxpayers' money 
as inmates receive the benefit of a solid, revolutionary, 
rehabilitation education program. 

For example, the Department of Corrections has just 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

I? 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



27 

eliminated a successful ten-year old vocational program at 
Soledad Prison, a program that taught inmates new skills, body 
and fender program, that they could use to find jobs in the 
real world, thereby relieving the financial burden on the 
citizens. Through this program, they were able to stay out of 
prison, and the elimination just doesn't make sense to us. 

We believe the current Corrections' education 
program is under-funded and under-staffed. In the past nine 
years since I've been in Corrections, the average class size 
has doubled, so the ratio is 24-1: one teacher to 24 inmates 
per class. Paperwork, of course, has multiplied, leaving less 
time for the actual education process, reducing the opportunity 
for meaningful correctional education. 

On the issue of TB in prisons, earlier this month, 
CSEA learned that 19 workers in Susanville State Prison tested 
positive for tuberculosis. We have a serious TB problem at CIW 
as well. We're concerned what Mr. Gomez is doing about this 
rising disease crisis. We question whether the new 
Corrections ' TB screening program for prisoners and employees 
is moving fast enough in light of this major health concern 
with the employees and inmates. 

Last year, at least three employees at Folsom 
tested positive for TB after workers had complained that one 
inmate fell ill of TB infection at Folsom. The Folsom warden 
admitted that faulty ventilation affected the TB incident. 

On the access restriction, does the Director and 
Corrections administration fully understand the labor rights of 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 



19 

20 
21 



24 

25 
26 

27 



28 
unions to freely voice opposition to the Governor's contract, 
bargaining positions, and take-away demands, and the rights of 
the union to freely have access to our members? 

During Mr. Gomez's watch, Corrections Chief Deputy 
Director Denninger issued two memos as directives to all 
wardens: one in December, 1991, and a second in January, 1992. 
The first banned strike-related buttons or clothing. His 
premise was based on the truly far-fetched notion that these 
buttons and clothing articles might incite inmates to become 
violent . 

I think I have a copy of that button with me. This 
is in fact the button that was worn, and T-shirts that say the 
same thing: "I don't want to strike but I will." 

The other memo singled out CSEA and banned the 
union from holding meetings at CDC facilities. Our union, 
CSEA, has filed unfair labor practice charges as a result of 
those memos, and we are awaiting a hearing at the present time. 
The question is, did Mr. Gomez approve these memos? We don't 
know. 

We don't think these types of rigid attempts to 
control our union rights promote the kind of good labor 
relations that can benefit the Department of Corrections, its 
workers, or the state. 

In closing, I urge the Senate Rules Committee to 
take a careful look at this appointment on behalf of the 5700 
employees that we represent. CSEA has done so and has come 
away with more questions than answers. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



29 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. GOMEZ: Just briefly to address those issues. 

I guess the one that bothers me the most is the 
PERC program. I met with Perry Kenny and Andy Shockeron about 
a month ago. And at that meeting, they recommended a go-slow 
approach. They recommended a one pilot or two pilot, and 
that's what we are going to be doing. 

So, I'm a little concerned that at that meeting it 
was recommended that we have a go-slow approach, and that we do 
a real thorough evaluation. That is the direction we're 
heading in the PERC program. 

Relative to vocational education, and once again, 
let me give you some numbers. Last year, I reduced 29 
positions in vocation -- in education: 17 in academic and 12 
in vocation. The program that Perry talks about was part of 
the cut in the Soledad vocational program. I cut over 600 
positions in the Department. 

In the year prior, and the Director of Corrections 
at that time, Jim Rowland, had an 800 position cut. He cut 80 
positions, 10 percent. I cut CSEA teachers by 5 percent, 
because I have a commitment to education, and the best way I 
can demonstrate my commitment is to make as little cut as 
possible in positions. 

I felt that 29 positions was about — less than 
half of what happened the year before and was responsible 
management. I reviewed each and every one of those positions 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

25 
26 

27 
28 



30 

personally on a weekend. I went through over a thousand 
position cuts in the Department, and I made some changes to 
have only 29 positions cut. 

I understand Mr. Kenny's concern that money is 
tight. But I get what the Legislature gives me, and I have to 
deal with that issue. 

I do not like cutting education. I hope not to cut 
education at all this year, but only the budget process will 
give me a fair perspective. 

On the issue of TB, their concern is legitimate. I 
have equal concern if not more than Mr. Kenny expresses. We're 
looking at potential mandatory testing for 103,000 inmates and 
30,000 staff in the next two to three months as a potential. 
We have issue papers and analysis being presented to me where 
we may have to test every single departmental employee and 
every single inmate. 

Testing positive for TB is not necessarily a 
problem. I test positive for TB today, but I don't have active 
TB. I'm not infectious. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. Thank you for 
telling us . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. GOMEZ: I say that because people react to TB 
very dangerously. I've had it in my family. I think I have an 
understanding of it. 

Being -- having a PPD positive is just an 
indication that you've been exposed to TB. It does not mean 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



31 

you have an active case. 

But we have a problem, as I said in my opening 
remarks. TB is a national issue. If you look at the March 
16th Newsweek , the whole article, the whole front page says, 
"TB", with a chest x-ray. It predicts that in the United 
States, we'll have TB sanitariums in operation throughout this 
nation in the late 1900s. It predicts, with the Third World 
migration that's come in, and the health conditions of people 
coming from Third World countries and the super TB strain, that 
we could have a significant, a significant, massive problem in 
the nation, and California would be part of that. 

So, I really understand his concerns. As I said 
earlier, I have redirected 25 positions and a million and a 
half dollars. 

If I believe tomorrow that a million dollars will 
make the difference, I'll redirect another million dollars to 
that issue. It's a public health issue; it's not a 
Corrections' issue. And I have a responsibility to the public 
health of the State of California. We have people coming in 
and out everyday. 

I've met with the Department of Health Services. I 
took each and every recommendation that George Rutherford gave 
us. I met with the Centers for Disease Control from Atlanta, 
and took every recommendation from the Centers for Disease 
Control . 

We are committed to the issue of dealing with TB. 
And if we're not aggressive on the issue, if we are not 



4 
s 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



26 

27 
28 



32 

aggressive on the issue, it'll get worse. And I say that 
because it's an important issue. 

The last issue in terms of access, I understand 
Mr. Kenny's concerns. There have been some access problems. 
There have been some meetings with Chuck Tate of his staff 
recently, and I think the access issues will work themselves 
out in the near future. 

But there were some problems . And the way we 
perceived and the Department of Personnel Administration 
perceived, and on this issue, I take the lead from DOPA, they 
felt that the issues that had taken place were above and beyond 
those contractual obligations that we have. 

But I feel comfortable that over the next month or 
two, we'll work those issues out. Two meetings have taken 
place, and I feel comfortable that reasonable people will come 
up with a reasonable solution. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Soledad was an issue in my district 
down there. 

The question, 29 cuts you made in one category, and 
the 5 percent, was Soledad cut disproportionately, or was it 
along with the same level of cuts of every institution in the 
state? 

MR. GOMEZ: It was cut proportionately in total 
positions, but disproportionately in terms of education. 

They took more educational cuts than any other 
institution in the state. The warden felt — 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Id 
II 
12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



33 

SENATOR MELLO: When you say "they" — 

MR. GOMEZ: CTF . The warden made — 

SENATOR MELLO: "They" is you, and when you say 
"they", you're the one. I think the way the cuts were made 
last year by the Budget Committee, they delegated to the 
Department of Corrections to go ahead and install their own 
cuts . 

MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. 

SENATOR MELLO: So, the Department of Corrections, 
then, are the ones that made these cutbacks. 

MR. GOMEZ: I'm clearly responsible for it. 

I — what I was trying to tell you, each 
institution made proposals to me of what they thought they 
should cut. That particular institution recommended more 
educational cuts than any other institution. 

I did not accept all their cuts, but when I 
reviewed their data, they have a very strong academic- 
vocational program at Soledad in comparison to many other 
institutions. They have had a history of a fairly good program 
down there. And I felt, given the cuts that they had to take, 
that they could -- they could take those in academic and 
vocation. 

I certainly have to tell you, I didn't enjoy that 
then; I don't enjoy that today. 

SENATOR MELLO: I know your philosophy on 
education. I think that it's got to be the answer to people. 
It's been proven time and time again. People who come in and 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

2? 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



34 
get an education, GED, or even in the college courses that 
we're teaching down there, they leave there with a college 
degree in their hands, the recidivism rate just about 
disappears with those persons . 

And in Soledad, we have lost a lot because of the 
overcrowding. We have lost classrooms, we've lost vocational 
classrooms and others. We've cut into the hospital wards and 
took way spaces there to put cells and beds in there for 
inmates when we were up to 6200-6300. 

I hope we get those back now with the expansion 
being planned and recommit ourselves to the education part of 
it. 

MR. GOMEZ: I understand. 

SENATOR MELLO: The second thing, I don't think we 
ironed out the access. I know the problems you have, but I 
think under rules of unions having the right to have access, I 
know the Farm Labor Act, they've had it in other general union 
agreements, not even a union agreement. People can just have 
access at normal hours, like during the lunch hour, before and 
afterward to come in. 

So, I guess the issue here is, does your plan 
vision that they will have access on this reasonable basis? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, on a reasonable basis, certainly. 
I think they ought to have access. I think the law gives them 
that right. I think they ought to have it even if the law 
didn't give it to them. 

It's a matter of, in a couple of institutions, we 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 



13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



23 

24 
2? 
26 
27 
28 



35 
believe — and I was provided information that said that they 
were far exceeding what a reasonable access was in terms of 
calling a meeting for one issue, and then a strike and other 
issues material that our Department of Personnel Administration 
felt went beyond what should have happened. 

And I got my expertise and my information from the 
Department of Personnel Administration that this clearly 
wasn't a Corrections "let's go after CSEA" issue. I don't 
desire to go after CSEA. 

SENATOR MELLO: Also, you wrote them two letters 



11 

saying that they could not use the facilities. 



MR. GOMEZ: We have since met with them, and I 
think as recently as March 11th, and they have had access back 
in some facilities and it's coming back to the other 
facilities . 

I think Chuck Tate of his staff has met with Carol 
Cahalia of my staff. I think the most recent meeting was -- 
well, the letter was March 11th, and Virginia Guadiana wrote 
the letter. And it appears that we are working our way away 
from this problem, from my perspective. I hope CSEA feels 
we're working our way away from this problem also. 

SENATOR MELLO: Okay, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Next witness, please. 

MR. BRUCE: Good afternoon. My name is Bruce III. 

In 1989, I had seven officers wrongfully terminated 
at CIM. 



4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



36 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What was your position? 

MR. BRUCE: At that particular time, I was the 
Chapter President for CCPOA at CIM. 

Mr. Rowland, in his time as Director, reinstated 
all of these officers with the exception of two. Prior to him 
losing his position as the Director, he was working on 
reinstating those two officers. However, he did not have the 
opportunity to do so. 

At this point, Mr. Gomez became Director. I met 
with Mr. Gomez at — on his first Director's meeting. I 
personally hand-walked copies of both these men's cases into 
him, asked him at that Director's meeting to review these 
cases, that I felt that they — that these people were 
wrongfully terminated. 

Mr. Gomez got back to me approximately two weeks 
later, indicating that he felt after reviewing them that, had 
he been the Director at the time, they would not have been 
terminated. He indicated that he was not going to, quote, 
"allow me to bury his ass in personnel problems." 

I told him at that time that I felt that that was 
kind of an unusual statement to be made, since I couldn't get 
the warden at CIM at that time to do his job properly. 

Since then, I've been trying — Senator Presley, 
Senator Ayala, all these people have reviewed these people's 
cases. Everyone has indicated and felt that the two staff 
members were wrongfully terminated. 

Mr. Gomez indicated earlier in his presentation 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



37 
that he was a caring Director. I'm wondering, has he changed? 
Is he now willing to work toward correcting a wrong that he 
indicated to me and Jack Meola, the State Vice President of the 
CCPOA, that he felt that these people were wrongfully- 
terminated, but that he wasn't going to intervene into it? 

I'd like to know has he in fact changed? Is he 
going to take some corrective measure? 

MR. GOMEZ: Mr. Bruce the Third must have heard a 
different conversation than the one I did. 

I told him that I would get back to him within 30 
days on those two cases. Everything he said up to the point he 
provided me a stack of material, I would think, that was this 
high? 

MR. BRUCE: Pretty close. 

MR. GOMEZ: I read over 700 pages of material 
because he asked me personally to review those two cases. 

After reading that 700 pages of material, I called 
him, and I told him I would take no different action than the 
former Director did. They've been terminated; they should stay 
that way. 

Anything to the contrary is just not true. I told 
him at that point in time, I reviewed the cases, and I was 
going to make no different decision. 

I never said that I would — that these men 
deserved, or women deserved their jobs back, as he indicated. 
I spent the time and effort to review 700 pages of personnel 
files and found them to be appropriately terminated based on 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

2 I 

it 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



38 

the documentation I had. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Has any personnel action been 
taken in regards to these terminations? 

MR. GOMEZ: They had been terminated before I was 
Director. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I do understand that, but did 
they take subsequent personnel action? 

MR. GOMEZ: I think they appealed to the Personnel 
Board and did not win in the Personnel Board. 

MR. BRUCE: The State Personnel Board, sir, is such 
a big fantasy, it's a La-La Land in itself. That, if we were 
seriously interested in cutting this budget and saving money, 
we'd start with the SPB. That's a joke in itself. 

They co-sign and stamp whatever warden -- whatever 
the decision the warden is wanting to do at the time. That's 
the program that I feel seriously should be looked into. 

On the matter of this discrepancy between what I 
supposedly heard by Mr. Gomez, I believe that this could be 
verified by Jack Meola, the State Vice President. I believe 
he's in the audience. 

I wouldn't have any reason to stretch the truth, 
let's say, concerning these two individuals. I've been trying 
to see what my possibilities would be of getting these people 
reinstated for the last over three and a half years because I 
gave me word to them. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any other questions? I don't 
have any others . 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



2^ 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



39 

Thank you very much. 

MR. BRUCE: Yes, sir, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Next witness, please. 

MR. FELDMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen 
of the Committee. My name is Ray Feldman. I'm a correctional 
officer at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco. 

I've been an officer now for 20 years. I'm here on 
behalf of the organization that I'm a President of, the 
International Brotherhood of Peace Officers, which is a small 
organization consisting of correctional officers and other 
peace officers. They're growing steadily. 

We ' re here today representing our membership and 
other concerned line staff in opposing the confirmation of 
Mr. James Gomez as California Department of Corrections 
Director. 

Now that Mr. Gomez has shown you what a kinder, 
gentler Department he has, I'd like to show you some of the 
things that are going on in the Department. 

The following are some, but not all, of the 
reasons, and we're just the tip of the iceberg as to our 
objections and concerns. 

As is evidenced by documents presented to you by me 
recently, which are a very small portion of the documents and 
testimony that we have, we feel that Mr. Gomez is not 
interested in our welfare, nor seeing to it that his Department 
operates justly. 

Even when presented with evidence showing 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



40 
injustices, which in some cases have already been investigated 
by his predecessor, he ignores the finding and allows it to 
continue. His staff has refused to honor signed agreements as 
well as agreements already reached by his predecessor. 

Mr. Gomez was made aware both in writing and in 
verbally of disparate, unjust treatment and discriminatory 
application and use of the adverse action system and did not 
respond in any meaningful manner, and in some cases, not at 
all. He has allowed some of his deputy directors, 
administrators, and supervisors to use the adverse action 
system for their own personal vendettas against employees . 
This is evidenced by the numerous cases of adverse actions that 
have been overturned, thrown out, and proven to be unfounded. 
It ' s also attested to in recent Senate hearings held by this -- 
on this very subject, resulting in proposed new legislation by 
Senator Robert Presley and Assemblyman Floyd. 

This is also made very clear when comparing adverse 
actions, or rather the lack of it, dealing with misconduct by 
supervisors and administrators. The extent of favoritism and 
disparate treatment they receive as compared with line staff 
personnel in adverse actions very quickly surfaces and becomes 
apparent when examined. 

When you have a deputy director in charge of 
adverse actions and approving those actions without even 
reading them, thereby allowing innocent people to be 
terminated, suspended, lose their pay, and their families 
destroyed, and then this person gets promoted, something is 



3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 



13 

14 

15 

lb 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
2^ 



41 
very wrong here . 

When you have a warden who illegally wiretaps, 
monitors, and distorts, and then uses those recordings to fire 
four innocent officers, then giving this person a promotion to 
a nice new prison, something is very wrong here. 

Promoting the captain of investigations at this 
institution after that incident shows there's something very 
wrong here . 

When you have a warden who comes on the prison 
grounds with a firearm, and an inmate finds it, yet he gets no 
adverse action, something is very wrong here. 

When CDC administrators ignore, refuse to honor, 
and reject signed settlement agreements, causing an employee to 
lose four and a half years' worth of promotional opportunities, 
something is very wrong here. 

When administrators fire, suspend and abuse line 
staff for offense much less severe than the ones they 
themselves are guilty of, something is very wrong here. 

When the officers are more afraid and apprehensive 
about the administration stabbing them in the back than the 
very convicts they work with everyday, something is very wrong 
here. 

When a Director of Corrections tells a union 
representative he does not and will not be bothered with 
personnel problems, there's something very wrong here. 

When a Director appoints an adverse action task 
force to investigate adverse action systems -- the adverse 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

in 
11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



42 
action system, and then makes a mockery out of it by appointing 
administrators and supervisors to that without any line staff 
who have personal knowledge and experience in abuses of this 
system, something is very wrong here. 

When supervisors and administrators suffer no 
severe consequences, and are not made to pay for initiating and 
issuing false, unwarranted and unjust adverse actions, there's 
something very wrong here. 

When persons are promoted to positions they are not 
qualified for, did not earn, and in some cases were not even on 
the list for, and there are persons more qualified and higher 
on the list who get bypassed because they do not know the right 
person, or affiliated with union representation, something is 
very wrong here . 

When a Director is more interested in attending 
lunches, dinners, ceremonies, and rubbing shoulders with 
dignitaries, rather than dealing with the problems and concerns 
of his line staff, something is very wrong here. 

There are many more instances of monetary abuses as 
well as unjust treatment which could be brought up, but time 
does not permit it here . 

We had a Director prior to Mr. Gomez who for years 
was not especially responsive to his line staff. Finally, when 
he was shown evidence and realized that some of his staff were 
not always honest and forthright with him, when he finally 
convinced -- when he was finally convinced to look into some 
matters himself and investigate them, he found cases mishandled 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

IT 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



43 
and many abuses by his staff. He then started to take action 
to correct some of these injustices, but of course, as soon as 
this started, he was promptly replaced by Mr. Gomez, who 
promptly ignored all the work done by him and brought us back 
to square one. 

Let us state that we do not need a politically 
correct Director. We do not need a Director of any particular 
race, color, sex, national origin. We do not need a Director 
who could very easily be replaced by a rubber stamp for his 
subordinates' abuses, indiscretions, and violations of 
employees' rights. 

We do, however, need a Director who's a human 
being, and who will correct wrong when he finds it, no matter 
at what level, and who will impose swift, decisive, and severe 
discipline, yes, even on supervisors and administrators for 
abuse of employees and their rights; a Director who would 
instruct his subordinates down to the lowest supervisory level 
in the proper use of progressive discipline, common sense, and 
the importance of fairness to all. 

We do not as yet find these qualities in Mr. Gomez. 
When we have a Director who allows an institution to go and 
repaint an old, 1970 trash truck at the cost of approximately 
$4,000 of our state taxpayers' money, dollars, and then 
subsequently sell it because they decided to buy a new trash 
truck, that's a waste of taxpayers' money, as far as I'm 
concerned. 

When the institutions go about fixing up old survey 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



44 
vehicles at about $4,000 apiece, that's a waste a taxpayers' 
money . 

When the warden -- when a warden is allowed to buy 
rose bushes for the administration building walkway at $2,000 
apiece, with $50 replacements per bush, that to me does not 
show leadership. 

When a heliport is watered constantly almost 24 
hours a day when there's a water shortage, and we are 
restricted one wash per month on our state vehicles, this just 
VIPs landing with at helicopter see green grass, that to us is 
abuse . 

When there is one bad tire on a vehicle, and it's 
not repairable, and they throw out all the rest of the three 
tires on that vehicle, no matter what shape they're in, that to 
me is abuse. 

When an institution goes so far as to order the 
wrong fuel for a power house generator, then they had to pay to 
have it pumped out and removed back to the same company they 
bought it from at higher cost than what they paid for it in the 
first place, that to me is abuse. 

When ordering from outside vendors, and you order 
from a minority-owned business, you can pay 10 percent higher 
than any other bid or estimate for the job. So, vendors are 
now putting their companies in their wives' names, or in some 
other name so they can charge more. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That is pursuant to state 
policy, though; isn't it? I would stipulate that that's the 



4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



45 
case. 

MR. FELDMAN: When cuts are made so that us 
officers have to drive a condemned bus, a 32-foot long bus, 
with the driver's seat ripped out of it, and we have to put the 
driver's seat on a milk crate and strap ourselves down to drive 
the truck around the institution, that to me is abuse. 

When they buy that — when they buy that new trash 
truck, by the way, Senator, they bought this new trash truck. 
They bought it with a stick shift transmission. Well, lo and 
behold, they found out that the man they hired to drive the 
truck at the institution didn't know how to drive a stick 
shift, so he burned up two clutches within two months at $800 
apiece or so. So, instead of teaching the man how to drive a 
stick shift transmission, they went out and replaced the 
transmission, threw it out, and put an automatic in for him. 
So, now he can drive an automatic transmission. That to me is 
a waste of time. 

So, therefore, those are some of the examples, I 
can give you many more, of adverse actions and other things 
that have been -- have been come up, but the other side of the 
story needs to be told. 

This is not a more responsive Department. When I 
see administrators, and when I see supervisors being punished 
for wrongful terminations, when I see the Director more 
responsive to his people, not just the upper eschelon people 
but the line staff, they seem to always forget us, then I'll 
consider supporting him. 



3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



46 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

MR. GOMEZ: Just a quick response. 

We do make mistakes at the Department of 
Corrections. No doubt about it. We have made mistakes in 
adverse actions and that's an issue that we're spending time 
on, an adverse action task force. 

The rest of it, I really don't have any comment to. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MR. FELDMAN: I didn't think so, sir. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next, please. 

MR. SNELL: Gentlemen, ladies, I appeared here 
earlier today in this building on a subcommittee hearing on the 
Ralph M. Brown Act. 

My name's E.T. Snell, and my moniker is E.T. the 
Clown. 

I had the chance to try to expose some of the 
toxics and some of the abuses that go on in our society, and I 
didn't come here for the purpose of talking at this particular 
meeting, but I had the chance, and I felt that the Lord has 
kind of guided me here. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: In regards to the appointment of 
Mr. Gomez? 

MR. SNELL: And others. I wish to -- you asked for 
comments on others . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, I asked for comments on 
Mr. Gomez. That's what this hearing is for. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 
2*7 

28 



47 

MR. SNELL: Right. I am opposed , Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You are opposed to Mr. Gomez? 

MR. SNELL: Well, you said other comments. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Oh, no, I understand. 

MR. SNELL: If you're going to put me down to it, 
I 'm going to — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, no, if you have a statement 
to make on Mr. Gomez, we'll be glad to hear it. 

MR. SNELL: I have a statement to make about the 
Department of Corrections, in reference to the Department of 
Corrections . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Fine. 

MR. SNELL: If that's all right, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That's within the range of 
discussion. 

MR. SNELL: That's what I was hoping to speak on. 

I'm not here to clown around. I'm not here to make 
any jokes of what this system is. 

My grandfather was a clown, and his brothers were 
clowns. After many years of pressure, he finally cracked and 
spent 20 years in mental institutions, which led my father to 
wind up in institutions, and consequently had me, at the ripe 
age of 13, in institutions. And that's what brought me here, 
ladies and gentlemen, today to hopefully give you some of my 
expertise testimony, and hopefully to try to get your attention 
to get some reform. 

I've heard you mention many things about reform. 



6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 

26 

27 
28 



48 
TB is really one that concerns me. With all these prison 
guards in here today, I'm really concerned, as we all should 
probably be tested after this meeting. I see a pretty 
close environment here, and TB spreads pretty quickly. I would 
like that say that as an environmentalist. 

I have many credits to myself. I have a real 
estate license. I also do occasionally clown around, and I 
would like to say what I feel is crime is caused from. 

I spent the last Thursday, Friday and Monday in 
front of a Santa Ana Superior Courthouse in matter of bail 
reform. The bail bondsman made over $100 million last year, 
and they used this very building to do this. They have bene 
run out of the federal system. 

There's many issues I'd like to cover in a very 
brief amount of time. I have expertise in some issues of 
reform. Sally Tanner, I've tried — contacted Mr. Presley 
before on bail bond reform. This is what causes crime. 

The idea is, if you have a bail bond, and you are 
poor, it should not cost you $5,000 through a bail bondsman. 
The rich get out of jail. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: With all due respect, I think 
you're running afield of Mr. Gomez. 

MR. SNELL: Well, well, let's get down to the 
bottom line. 

The bottom line is, 94 percent of these guys come 
out of prison. It's $25,000 a year to house these guys. This 
thing is a joke. I mean, why don't we cut the guys loose a year 



49 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



early, give them some reform, send them to Stan -- do something 
with them. I mean, it's obvious that this system is backing 
up. It's not working. The system isn't working for us. These 
guys are coming out anger [sic]. 

Look what they do. Look at what turned Charles 
Manson out. The unad -- the problem of dealing with him. He 
was molested as a child. And what are they doing to these guys 
at Pelican Bay? They're molesting their — their bodies as 
they come in out there for cavity searches. What do you think 
that does to a man when he comes back out into society? Do you 
think that helps him? 

You know, the jokes that go around, the guards 
passing and instigating the riots. I know. I went through it. 

All I wanted to do was get some positive input and 
let you people know that the system isn't working. We need a 
serious, serious change. And I'm not my brother's keeper, and 
I'm not here to try to pass judgment on anybody. All I wanted 
to do was get down, and I felt that I was the only one in this 
place here that's ever done any time in institutions. 

How can -- we need both sides of it. And that's 
all I'd like to say. 

God bless you, and I hope you get some reform. And 
I wish you luck if you make it. 

MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Any other witnesses? 

MS. CHACON: Good afternoon. My name is Denise 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



50 
Chacon, and I'm a correctional officer assigned to Patton State 
Hospital in San Bernardino. 

I would like to preface my statements by expressing 
appreciation for the opportunity to address this Committee. 

Before I go any further, I'd like to say that on 
Friday, I FAXed Mr. Gomez a letter with the supporting 
documents which pertain to what I ' d be testifying here today. I 
also sent it to your research consultant. 

On Friday, apparently Mr. Gomez made several phone 
calls, inquiring as to my authority to testify before you here 
today, so I'd like to give him at this time a letter of a 
unanimous mandate by my local chapter to be here on their 
behalf today. I'm testifying on two separate issues. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Your local chapter of — 

MS. CHACON: CCPOA. 

My attendance here today is in an effort -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Pelican Bay? 

MS. CHACON: No, Patton State Hospital. 

My attendance today is in an effort to render 
information which will hopefully assist in the decision making 
process . 

My initial contact with Mr. Gomez came in May of 
last year. I accompanied Jack Meola, who is the CCPOA Vice 
President over Corrections, to a monthly Director's meeting. 
This meeting is a forum wherein local chapter presidents meet 
with the Director to discuss issues at their respective 
institutions . 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



51 

At the May, 1991 meeting, I spoke specifically on 
safety and security issues, such as, however not limited to, 
the lack of a shooting policy, correctional officers conducting 
police business, the manner in which inmates are transported, 
unsafe emergency equipment, so on and so forth. 

Mr. Gomez gave every assurance that the problem 
addressed would be resolved expeditiously. 

Shortly after the meeting, I was notified that each 
of the position assignments that had previously been the source 
of concern were to be eliminated due to budgetary constraints. 
The negotiations over position cuts transpired in August, and 
the actual depletion occurred in January. 

During the months of August to January, the 
positions to be eliminated changed vastly. Nearly all the 
originally negotiated positions were reinstated, ultimately 
leaving the original security concerns at issue. 

In November, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee 
conducted a hearing at Patton. I testified before that 
Committee. The concerns raised were vastly downplayed by 
Mr. Gomez's office. Since November, I've been providing 
Senators Alquist, Leonard, and Presley with documentation to 
support the allegations regarding the safety and security 
concerns . 

On February 14th, Senator Alquist instructed 
Mr. Gomez to respond to several of these concerns. The 
response Mr. Gomez submitted was totally inaccurate. I do not 
presume to know whether Mr. Gomez is completely misinformed, or 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



52 
whether the Committee was intentionally misled. In either 
case, such action is not that of a conscientious Director, 
especially in light of the severity of the issues at hand. 
At no time has anyone from Mr. Gomez's office 

contacted me to resolve these issues, nor have the issues been 

i 

addressed in any identifiable fashion. I have forwarded said 

documents to your research department for your review. The 

contents clearly and repeatedly delineate not only the severity 

of the current situation, but also the apathetic manner in 

ll 

which Mr. Gomez has attempted to dismiss our concerns. 

The only real concern that I'm aware of is that 
Mr. Gomez has displayed is whether or not I have the authority 
to address you today. 

At the conclusion of the Director's meeting in 
May, I requested a conference in private on a separate and 
personal matter. In Mr. Gomez's office, I informed him that I 
was currently involved in a federal litigation against the 
Department of Corrections, and that it was never my intention 
for the matter to reach such proportion, but I felt I had no 
other option. 

Mr. Gomez boisterously replied that he had 
approximately 1400 cases pending against the Department of 
Corrections, and that he didn't concern himself with any 
additional cases. I explained the nature of the case, and 
informed Mr. Gomez that a local investigation had been 
conducted which supported the claim of retaliation due to an 
EEO complaint. 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 

14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



53 

Mr. Gomez personally spoke to the associate warden 
who conducted the investigation, and also obtained a copy of 
said report. 

Approximately a week later, Mr. Gomez stated to a 
CCPOA representative that the allegations were not 
substantiated. Following that statement, Mr. Gomez phoned me 
at my work and informed me that the allegations were in fact 
substantiated. Mr. Gomez then asked what I wanted. 

I responded, "The same thing that I've always 
wanted. I want you to get your local administrators off my 
back, stop the harassment so I can do my job and be left 
alone. " 

Mr. Gomez then made an offer to relocate me to any 
facility within the state, remarking that such a move was just 
a phone call away from his office. I told Mr. Gomez I wasn't 
about to uproot my four children solely because he couldn't 
ensure his managers act in accordance with state and federal 
law. 

The federal judge's initial decision is now for 
publication as federal law in my favor. The evidence is so 
lengthy that the federal judge granted a year-long discovery 
period. 

Mr. Gomez was made very aware via the EEO report 
that the findings were very damaging against the Department of 
Corrections, yet he did not act. The Department's own 
investigation addressed the violation of law and harassment. 

It should be noted I brought all this evidence to 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



54 
the meeting in May. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What's the nature of the 
harassment? 

MS. CHACON: Specifically? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MS. CHACON: I had a correctional captain several 
times slap me on the back in front of witnesses and tell me 
that the one thing I need to learn about the Department of 
Corrections and I will accept is that everyone has to give a 
little head now and then. 

This captain admitted it in the EEO findings, 
stating that, yes, he said it, but that's not really exactly 
what he meant. And there were several other allegations there 
that were supported. 

It should be noted that I brought all this evidence 
to the meeting, with the exception of the confidential report 
which was obtained for Mr. Gomez's review. Mr. Gomez did not 
wish to review my material at that time, and my EEO complaint 
is far from being an isolated incident at Patton. 

With regard to both the Patton matter and the 
litigation, Mr. Gomez was given ample opportunity to resolve 
the issues at the lowest possible level, and at any level, for 
that matter. 

Although Mr. Gomez did use my scenario in a 
warden's meeting, and notification of the judge's decision is 
now being distributed statewide to his top managers, the 
situation continues as of this day. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

V 

28 



55 

I'd also like to say in closing with regard to what 
the CSEA representative said, I'm precluded from accessing my 
employees on an ongoing basis. 

And with regard to the statement of under a 
reasonable basis, when my staff is being removed from 
accompanying dangerous inmates on transports, and I have 
numerous posts being vacated, I'm told very single day that 
it ' s not reasonable for me to even ask because there ' s no one 
to take my place so that I can access my employees. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You said the situation is going 
on to this day. You mean that kind of comment, or something 
similar to it? 

MS. CHACON: No, it's — I supplied for Mr. Gomez a 
stack approximately this tall — would you agree — of 
documentation supporting the allegations of harassment and 
retaliation based on the EEO complaint and the filing of the 
federal litigation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Has there been any official 
finding as pertains to retaliation? 

MS. CHACON: The federal EEO has deferred it over 
to the federal court as I'm seeking litigation now, so they 
make the determination. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : That ' s pending right now? 

MS. CHACON: That's pending. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And your accusation is 
retaliation by who specifically? 

MS. CHACON: Well, to be specific, I have one 



56 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



witness who was approached by an associate warden who was sent 
over to my facility and told that their sole job would be to 
write documentation on me for progressive discipline. Three 
female supervisors were approached. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Gomez, do you want to 
respond? 

MR. GOMEZ: First I'd like to deal with the issue 
regarding the reduction of positions at Patton. 

At Patton, we did reduce 37 positions in security. 
They were as part of the budget reduction that I was forced to 
go through. I felt comfortable then; I feel comfortable today 
that the positions we reduced still provide a good security 
system for perimeter security for Patton State Hospital. 

Patton State Hospital is not a prison; it is a 
state hospital. We have been asked through legislation and 
through the mental health system to provide perimeter security. 
We are providing that perimeter security. 

And although Ms. Chacon disagree on the issue of 
the needs of the institution by position, the CCPOA agreed to 
the 37 position reduction at the table, and it was a negotiated 
agreement . 

I didn't like cutting the 37 positions, but I feel 
very comfortable in telling this Committee, when I compare 
those 37 positions against many of the other positions I could 
cut in the Department, I felt that they were some of the 
easiest to cut because I did not see them providing the same 
level of security as some of the other institutions we have. 



57 



3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



Regarding her EEO complaint, I would say the 
majority of what she's talked about is correct in terms of her 
discussions with me, but I'd like to make some clarifications. 

Denise did come to meet with me. I think it was in 
May or June, I can't remember for sure. Presented some issues 
of a business nature at the CCPOA meeting, and then afterwards, 
asked to have a private conversation behind a closed door with 
me, which I agreed to. 

She made some significant allegations to me 
directly and gave me some material. She also said that she had 
a lawsuit pending — I think lawsuit pending was the issue. 
And I told her, and I think she misportrays this issue, we have 
a lot of lawsuits in the Department. If you have an EEO 
lawsuit, you should continue with it. Let me take a look at 
this . 

I took a look at it, and my findings -- I don't 
know whether I'm out of school at this point in time from a 
personnel standpoint, but I'm going to take some liberties 
anyway -- my findings were that some of what Ms. Chacon said 
was correct. An adverse action had been taken, and I found the 
adverse action insufficient. I felt that the adverse action 
that was taken, and it was while I was not Director but it as 
prior to my being Director, was insufficient. 

The case that she points out I did bring up at a 
wardens' meeting. And at the wardens' meeting, I let people 
know that that kind of behavior in my mind, when I'm director, 
people are going to be fired. They're going to be terminated. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



58 

I also went to our Labor Relations folks and said, 
"What can I do on a case where adverse action has been taken? 
Can I go back and get a second bite of the apple?" 

And by that, the investigation was conducted, a 
decision was made, and I was advised by my Labor Relations 
people and the legal staff that I couldn't have a second bite 
at the apple. That the adverse action had been taken, and it 
was not a significant adverse action, but it had been taken and 
I could not go back. 

I called Ms. Chacon and I told her that. I also 
told her — because she told me that she was getting from her 
perspective jerked around by — by sergeants, by lieutenants, 
by many different people at the institution. I called the 
warden. I called the captain. I called the associate 
personally. And I said, "It better stop. Whether she's half 
right, whether she's a quarter right, or whether she's a 
hundred percent right, it better stop. Don't jerk that lady 
around." And that's the instruction I gave to them. 

I did offer her, if she wanted, at her pleasure, to 
go to any other institution. Her response to that is, "I have 
my family locally. I like where I live, and I don't want to 
move." I said, "That's fine. I just wanted to give you that 
option. " 

I am probably as strong an individual on issues of 
sexual harassment in this Department as anybody that you'll 
have facing you as a Director. I have made it a policy, and 
I've met with every warden and every administrator, how I feel 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



59 
about staff sleeping in the chain of command, how I feel about 
treatment of women in the Department of Corrections. 

And we have ten years to go, Senator. We've got a 
long ways to go in the Department of Corrections. We are not 
-- we are not nine on a scale of one to ten in the treatment of 
women on issues of sexual harassment. It's an issue I will 
spend significant amount of time and energy and continue to 
spend that time and energy. 

But I did not take Ms. Chacon's comments lightly. 
I did not take her issues lightly. I investigated it. I read 
every document she gave me, and I found that the adverse action 
that was taken, I did not have an ability to go back on. 

I think she would agree that the adverse action and 
the issue took place while I was not Director, and the adverse 
action took place while I was not Director. 

She came to me feeling that she had not bene fairly 
dealt with. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Ms. Chacon. 

MS. CHACON: I have a rebuttal to that. 

First, I'd like to address the reduction issue. 

When I sat at the negotiating table with 
Mr. Gomez's team on August 16th, I prefaced that meeting by 
saying that we in no way agreed to those position cuts. At 
that meeting, we were told by Mr. Carl Larson that those 
positions were to be filled behind. Correctional officers 
would no longer be conducting those duties because our 
legislated role was to provide perimeter security only. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



60 

Subsequent to that meeting, nearly everyone of 
those positions were reinstated. When Senator Alquist wrote to 
Mr. Gomez and brought up the issue of these positions being 
filled, Mr. Gomez's response, which I have here, stated, "I 
know of no one with any authority in CDC to ever make that 
statement that those positions would be filled behind. " 

I'm in possession of the table notes today, where 
his people not only said at that meeting but a meeting 
subsequent to that that those positions would be filled behind, 
because the officers would no longer be conducting those 
duties . 

They're still conducting those duties. And the one 
letter that I sent to you in this packet, just as an example, 
in a circle of 12 observation posts, five of them are abandoned 
daily. In addition to that, we're not supposed to be doing the 
patrol duties anymore, and they're parking two patrol vehicles 
in front of officer's posts and telling them to abandon their 
posts and get in those vehicles and respond to the radio calls 
as the situations warrant. 

Additionally, we do feel that that situation's very 
unsafe there because Patton took the hardest hit statewide. In 
Mr. Gomez's figures, he states that we are facing a 20 percent 
reduction. In the chart that he sent Senator Alquist, it says 
that we were budgeted for 181 positions. We came to the table 
only having 153, and I repeatedly said, "I know we're budgeted 
for more positions than that." They said at the table, "No, 
you're not. You're only budgeted for 153, and you're going to 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



61 

end up with 125." I've got 112 right now from 181. That's 
about a 32 percent reduction. 

I don't really know what the problem is, if it's 
simple mathematics, but these figures just do not add up. 

With regard to my personal issue, I gave you no 
documents at that meeting. I brought in a whole satchel full 
of documents, and you told me you didn't have time to deal with 
that or read those documents. You just wanted to get a copy of 
the associate warden's report. 

As I left your office, you told your secretary, 
"Get this guy on the phone right now. " This particular 
association warden called me the next morning and said, "Jim 
Gomez called me. He asked me about my report. I told him 
exactly what my findings were." They asked for a copy of the 
report. The warden no longer had it. So, this associate 
warden had to dig up his copy of the report, get it to his 
warden so he could get it to Mr. Gomez. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What were the findings of the 
associate warden's report? 

MS. CHACON: He found — 

MR. GOMEZ: The associate warden found that she had 
— that inappropriate comments had been made to her, clearly. 

MS. CHACON: It was also stated very clearly in 
there that there was a violation of the labor codes, because 
when he interviewed my associate warden, and my captain, and 
the sergeant, and the the lieutenant involved in my situation, 
he concluded each one of their interviews abruptly and told 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



62 
them, "You need to get a representative. You're facing adverse 
action. " 

I happen to know for a fact that the day that the 
Attorney General's Office accepted service for my litigation, 
Jim Rowland called down to my institution and said, "Take no 
action against these people because we don't want it to look 
like an admission of guilt." 

With regard to the — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Jim Rowland is who? 

MS. CHACON: The previous Director. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What I'm trying to figure out, 
in your personal case it's very serious, and we've heard these 
kinds of things, unfortunately, come up with the Department of 
Corrections in the past. 

However, the relevant point to me as far as your 
personal case is if there was any dereliction of duty on the 
part of Mr. Gomez. 

MS. CHACON: My attorneys instructed me to add 
Mr. Gomez as a co-defendant because he's known of the 
retaliation and harassment for almost a year and taken no 
action. I've not done this. 

But he was made aware of it, and it has not ceased 
as of today. 

Now, I know he can't take a second bit out of the 
apple. I never asked him for a second bite out of the apple. 

When he phoned me at my job, what I asked him was 
get these people to leave me alone. I specifically told you, 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



63 
if I'm out of line, and I need discipline, I expect discipline. 
But this everyday, day after day, continual crap -- if you'll 
excuse my language — has got to stop. 

MR. GOMEZ: She did say that, and — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : And when she approached you that 
way, what have you done or what did you say? 

MR. GOMEZ: As I said, I called the captain, I 
called the associate, I called the warden, and I said, "That 
stuff has got to stop. I don't want to hear about it. I don't 
want to see it. It's got to stop. You cannot be harassing 
people. " 

I mean, this job — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Have you taken any — 

MR. GOMEZ: -- this -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: When did that call take place? 

MR. GOMEZ: That call took place probably — 

MS. CHACON: June. 

MR. GOMEZ: — fifteen minutes after — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: June of -- 

MS. CHACON: Last year. 

MR. GOMEZ: Fifteen minutes after I confirmed what 
I believed was Ms. Chacon's concerns. 

And I have to agree with her on an issue. I said I 
reviewed a stack of paper like this that she provided me. 
That's -- she's right. I did review a stack of paper like 
this; it was all the stack of paper on the action and the 
investigations. She did not provide it to me . I got it from 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



64 
Personnel, Labor Relations. She's correct on that point. 

I think that the point that she made to me was, "I 
want you to get these people off my back. I'm getting tired of 
it. " 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And she says nothing has 
happened. Have you stayed on top of it? 

MR. GOMEZ: She has not said -- she has not said a 
word to me since that phone call that she's had one bit of 
harassment. I just have to be honest with you, not one time 
has she called and said, "Jim, they're still harassing me. 
They're still giving me a hard time." 

I called those people 'cause I was concerned about 
her as an individual. 

Now, this issue on labor relations and on the 37 
positions, we're going to argue about that one for a long time. 

But this issue about how she was treated, the 
minute I confirmed what I believed the treatment of her was, I 
called down, and I have not heard a word from Denise on that 
since. 

MS. CHACON: Okay. 

I did try and get a clarification from his office. 
I wrote to Mr. Denninger on three separate occasions because 
subsequent to this, there was also a program administrator sent 
to my facility to — she was doing an investigation on — on 
several issues, this issue being one of them. 

She spoke to me at length about this issue. I 
wrote to Mr. Denninger three times, and Mr. Denninger wrote 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



65 
back to me and said -- the first time he said, "This woman says 
she never interviewed you because she was on vacation." 

And I kept writing and kept writing, and he wrote 
back and he said, "Well, we don't have anything to tell you 
because when she was there, she was really wasn't there on this 
case, but she was there on another case." 

So, the attempt was made by my office. When I got 
that letter back, I perceived it as the entire issue being 
swept under the rug again. 

MR. GOMEZ: We had enough personal conversation 
where I called her and she called me, that if she felt she was 
being hassled, she had my number. I really mean that, Senator. 

If I felt she was being hassled on those issues 
again, I'd personally -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I have — we've had testimony in 
the Department of Corrections in the past, and we have -- this 
Committee, not the Floor — in a very close vote, have rejected 
somebody who himself had done nothing erroneous, but had seemed 
to be lax in enforcement . 

The Department of Corrections, as you said, has a 
long, long way to go. This is a very serious charge, but I 
don't sense now -- maybe I'd like some help -- that Mr. Gomez 
has been lax in this point. 

Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I had a couple of questions. 

When you chew them out personally, which I think is 
a very good thing to do, is there a letter follow-up? 



3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
1? 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



66 

MR. GOMEZ: I didn't send a letter follow-up on 
this, no. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But then you got no more 
complaints . 

MR. GOMEZ: I got no more feedback whatsoever that 
there was an issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell me which other 
institutions, or which institutions you have served in? How 
many years -- 

MR. GOMEZ: I have never served at an institution. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You haven't? 

MR. GOMEZ: No. I have served in Sacramento all my 
life, with the exception of two years in Santa Clara. I've not 
come from the line. 

SENATOR PETRIS: At Headquarters? 

MR. GOMEZ: At Headquarters. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I asked that because of what 
Senator Roberti said. We had some pretty ugly situations at 
one of the other institutions. I wondered if you could comment 
from your own experience as to what was happening there, but — 

MR. GOMEZ: I could comment, that when I made the 
comments of lack of respect in the Department, how we treat 
people, I think when you have a lack of respect for your fellow 
co-worker, the people that will first -- first get hit are 
women and minorities. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's right. 

MR. GOMEZ: Secondly will be White males. 






10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



67 

I believe that when you disrespect the people you 
work with, if you don't have value for the people that you work 
with, that you start to create an environment that is not 
conducive to good employee relations. 

And I said, and I'll say it again, I think it's a 
ten-year project, Senator. It's probably -- if there's any 
legacy anybody can leave to Corrections, it will be a legacy of 
how people respect each other on the job. Then maybe we can 
deal with inmates a little differently, but first we have to 
deal with our staff better. 

I firmly believe that. I've made -- I have made it 
a platform. I've discussed it at every wardens' meeting. I 
have discussed it at every cabinet meeting. I've discussed it 
at parole regions. 

I sign every firing in the Department, an average 
of about 200 a year. I look at adverse actions, and they 
continually come up to show a lack of respect for people. 

And I can only say that it's going to take a lot of 
time, and a lot of effort, and a lot of heartache, and a lot of 
consistency, and a lot of consistency of message, and 
appointment of people that have similar views, because it is a 
difficult problem to deal with. 

Women have only come into law enforcement 
significantly in the last ten years. We have a 20 percent 
woman workforce. Most law enforcement agencies have from 8-9 
percent. How women are treated in that environment is a major 
issue . 



68 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



But it's not just women. It's everybody. It's an 
issue of respect, of how you respect your fellow co-worker. 
How you address them. How you deal with them. How you deal 
with their problems. 

And if there's -- if there is an area that I hope, 
a goal that I have that I'll be able to impact over eight 
years, if this Governor stays, that'll be the number one legacy 
that could be left with the Department of Corrections, is 
people treat each other better, 'cause they'll treat inmates 
better after that. 

We have a ways to go . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I admire your candor on 
that. I think we're well aware of that from hearings we've had 
over a considerable period of time a few years ago, where the 
old boys -- macho old boys' circle — what do we call it -- old 
boys' network, or whatever it is, was pretty awfully bad. And 
it was aimed at women, it was aimed at minorities. Women 
employees came in and testified, very courageous, as Ms. Chacon 
is, and others, and minorities. It was a very bad situation. 

That's one where confirmation was denied, I think. 

No? I guess, not. Well, anyway, we denied one. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, actually, the gentleman 
from Ohio, he was denied, and Mr. Campoy passed on the Floor by 
a vote or two . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Rooting out that kind of an old, 
old tradition and attitude is not easy. I hope you stay with 
hit and keep hammering away. It's just got to be done. 



3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
1? 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



69 

MR. GOMEZ: I took at $30,000 pay cut to take this 
job, to make a difference in Corrections. 

I think I can. I don't think that there's many- 
people that have the tenacity, that have the intent, that 
believe in what they're doing. 

I think that this, as I said in my opening remarks, 
this is the most challenging Department in state service. 
We've done some tremendous things. We incarcerate felons 
wonderfully, but we have a ways to go. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: On the issue of the reduction of 
the personnel, Ms. Chacon seems to be indicating that that 
creates hazards for the employees. 

What has been your feeling of this? 

MR. GOMEZ: I asked for staff — she just wrote a 
letter, I think, last Friday, FAXed Friday, and I met with 
Senator Alquist, I think, Monday. He was going to have a 
hearing on it. He then canceled that hearing. 

In reviewing that, I've not had an opportunity to 
get back or to do an analysis, frankly, of that letter. 

But I can tell you, I have continually asked staff 
who have good, strong custody backgrounds how comfortable they 
feel. They feel very comfortable. I have asked to have the 
Executive Director of Patton State Hospital what their opinion 
is [sic]. Their opinion came back as, "We'd rather have more 
positions, but we feel you're providing adequate security." 

I believe we're providing adequate security. There 
used to be a tremendous walk-away from that institution. Our 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



70 
officers cannot be armed at their posts in terms of perimeter 
security. We're dealing with patients. We're not dealing with 
inmates in terms of the Patton State Hospital . 

And I feel comfortable based on all the 
information I've been provided that we have adequate security. 

Do we have great security? Do we have the best 
security? No, but I've been provided a budget that I believe 
allows me adequate security at Patton. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I expect, based on Ms. Chacon's 
testimony, and this may be the first time since the 
conversation with you in May or June of last year, I expect, 
based on your testimony and what you say your policy has been, 
you will be in contact with those — 

MR. GOMEZ: I certainly will. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — individuals who appear to be 
harassing her continuously. 

MR. GOMEZ: I eliminated — part of the 37 
positions, I eliminated some of those positions: one 
correctional administrator. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Chacon. 

MS. CHACON: I was saying one. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Just one. 

MS. CHACON: Can I just make two closing points? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please, yes. 

MS. CHACON: What started all this is, when the 
Joint Legislative Budget Committee came to Patton, I provided 
them with telephonic testimony. It raised enough concern that 



4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 



13 

14 



18 
19 
20 



23 
24 



71 
Senator Alquist asked the Hospital administrator to respond to 
my concerns, which he did in this. 

Senator Leonard's office asked me to critique 
Mr. Summer's responses to those, which I did. I also forwarded 
it to Senator Alquist 's office, and he wrote a letter to 
Mr. Gomez, asking him to respond to my allegations, which 
Mr. Gomez did in this letter, this letter. 

And I wrote back to Mr. Gomez, telling him why all 
his answers were totally inaccurate, and I provided all the 
supporting documents to show him why. Why these security 
concerns are being downplayed, I don't know. 

With regard to there have been several walkaways in 
the past, we've been very lucky, period, and our luck's just 
about run out . 

With regard to the other issue, I didn't want 
Mr. Gomez to infer that he had an open door or open line of 
communication with me after that meeting. 

Mr. Gomez, if you remember, I was very hesitant to 
give you the name of the person who had told me what the 
confidential findings of that report were. You slammed your 
hand down on the desk, you raised your voice and said, "Look, 
I'm a very busy man. And if you don't want to tell me who told 
you that, you might as well get out of my office." 

I was -- I was crying. I told him, "I'm going to 
give you this name, but I'm very afraid that this person, who's 
one of your administrators, is now going to suffer 
retaliation. " 



28 



8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

U 

15 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 



24 
25 
26 



72 

I didn't leave there feeling we had an open door 
policy at all. I wrote three letters to Mr. Denninger, trying 
to keep this thing going. He -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Denninger, again, is — 

MS. CHACON: Being his Deputy — 

MR. GOMEZ: He's Deputy Director. 

MS. CHACON: He told me, first of all, I wasn't 
even interviewed by this woman. And when I wrote again and 
said, look, yes, I was. He said, well, that wasn't the scope 
of her investigation. 

So I -- I've tried to resolve this numerous times. 
I've wrote so many grievances on harassment and retaliation 
that go through Labor Relations, Mr. Gomez could not have 
known. 

MR. GOMEZ: I don't slam my hands down, and I 
really don't treat people that way. 

I do remember her being very upset, and I do 
remember saying that I really needed to have that name so I 
could talk to that person, but I don't agree with the other 
comments . 

MS. CHACON: I wasn't alone with him. There was a 
union executive in the room at the time. 

MR. GOMEZ: I ' d be more than happy for him to 
testify. 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the 
witness? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Mello. 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

14 

2U 



24 
25 
26 

27 

2s 



73 

SENATOR MELLO: How many -- I want to ask two 
questions, because I know we have 102,00 or 105,000 inmates, 
and there must be staff of, what, 35,000-40,000 in the whole 
Corrections Department. 

How many times, number one of two questions, how 
many times did you meet with him personally? 

Number two, how many times did you talk to him on 
the telephone on related matters such as this? 

MS. CHACON: I met with him one time in person last 
May. He called me after that meeting, and just the letters 
that I've sent to their office, trying to find out what the 
outcome was . 

SENATOR MELLO: Well, I think that in his position 
-- I'm not trying to say he shouldn't meet with you more, but 
just understand, as you do, the complexity of the whole 
Department, the numbers that you're dealing with. 

I'm just -- he could have very well passed you on 
to some assistant director here and there, but I mean, the fact 
that he wanted to speak with you personally, I think, is to his 
credit rather than trying to pass the buck to some other 
deputy . 

MS. CHACON: I was there at a monthly Director's 
meeting, which he hold monthly with chapter presidents. So, I 
was already there on union business. 

After that, I asked to speak to him in private. 

SENATOR MELLO: Yes, okay, thank you. 

MR. GOMEZ: As you can see, I'm not a Department 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

19 

20 



25 

26 
27 

28 



74 
without problems. But I can guarantee you, from my 
perspective, I have the capability of caring, and the desire to 
try and do the best job as the Director of the largest and 
most difficult Department in state service. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : We're going to break for five 



minutes . 



[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Senate Rules Committee will 



reconvene . 



Senator Petris has to leave. I don't think any of 
us realized this hearing was going to last as long as it has, 
and Senator Petris has to leave. 

The confirmation of the Director is a very 
important vote, one of the more important positions. I would 
like to get to the vote today, but nevertheless, I also would 
like to have a full Committee. 

I don't want to inconvenience the candidate, 
Mr. Gomez, so the best I can say is, I think we will put it 
over. However, put it over with the understanding that, for 
Mr. Gomez's sake, this is not an attempt to defeat your 
appointment . 

From what I have heard, I tend to think you are 
really rather diligent, and I take Ms. Chacon's testimony very, 
very seriously, and we do expect to act on that. But I have 
heard testimony of laxness in the Department of Corrections in 
many, many hearings, and yours just doesn't come into that 
category. In fact, it's quite the contrary. 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I! 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IX 

19 

20 



24 
23 
26 

: _ 

28 



75 

What you say about ten years, I hope it's not true. 
It's not your fault, but, I mean, how many years must we wait? 
This has been going on, going on, going on, and then we hear it 
again. 

However, I understand Ms. Chacon's original 
complaint was during the term, I guess, of the previous 
Director. Her accusation's very serious. Her case is very 
serious, but before I would cast a no vote on anybody in an 
authority position, I think the laxness would have to be 
directed at them. 

I hope she testifies before our budget committees. 
Her testimony's been excellent, and I think we have to have an 
understanding of what happens when we have cutbacks. It's a 
factor. 

But, your appointment is just terribly important, 
and everybody should hear it. I hope Senator Craven's here. 
I mean, this is something important. 

That doesn't mean I'm not going to listen to what 
the other witnesses have to say. I'm going to. 

But I just want you to know what the status of my 
mind is right now. This is not an attempt to put you over 
because we're trying to figure out a way of defeating your 
appointment . 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask 
Senator Petris a question, if I may. 

We're getting backed up with a lot of appointments 
coming up. I don't know what Senator Petris 's feelings are, if 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 

14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 
22 



26 



T7 



76 
he would be inclined, as we do in some committees subject to 
the Chairman, to open the roll, let him make a motion, and so 
forth. 

If he's not inclined to do that, whether Senator 
Roberti feels -- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, no, no, I don't want to do 
that. I think that this is an important appointment. 

If this were the Widget Commission, I would say, 
yes, let's do that. 

SENATOR MELLO: Would Senator Petris feel bad if we 
were to, and if Senator Roberti ' s inclined to be supportive, as 
I am, and assuming Senator Beverly is, to have us take action 
with your absence here today for the rest of the meeting? 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, I don't object to that, if the 
Chair — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think all five should hear 
this. I think otherwise, we treat an appointment like this, 
you know, sort of on a merry-go-round treadmill appointment. I 
just don't think that's right. 

This is an important appointment. People's 
concerns in this area are very, very important. 

I made my mind felt on how I felt about 
Mr. Gomez, but I really think everybody should hear it. This 
is just too important an issue, and we should all hear what 
goes on in Corrections. 

I'm not saying it's your fault. In fact, I'm 
pleased to hear what your response is, but I think we all have 



77 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

14 

.5 I 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



to hear what goes on there, because if we don't do anything 
else, we want to give you all the help we can to clean it up 
once and for all. It's just ridiculous that everytime we seem 
to have a confirmation, it's their only chance to vent what is 
happening. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, by saying I have no 
objection, if put it over and we hear it again, hope I haven't 
waived my right to ask some questions . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, no, no, and I explained that 
to Mr. Gomez as well. I mean, that doesn't mean the other 
appointees are not going to be heard and taken seriously, but 
it's just that important an issue. 

And we're at the hour of 6:05 right now. 
Thank you, Mr. Gomez. 

Dr. Mayer will be put over until the 8th. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
6:05 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



192-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.80 per copy plus 
current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1100 J Street, B-15 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Please include Senate Publication Number 192-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992 
2:15 P.M. 



^^.-s. 



MAY 2 






-*;$ 



193-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992 
2:15 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 
APPEARANCES 



10 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI, Chairman 



SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 



3 

4 

5 

6 SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

7 SENATOR HENRY MELLO 

8 MEMBERS ABSENT 

9 SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chairman 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
, 2 PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 



JERRY B. EPSTEIN, Member 

California Transportation Commission 

DEAN R. DUNPHY, Member 

California Transportation Commission 

JAMES H. GOMEZ, Director 
Department of Corrections 

FRANK NAVA 

Hispanic Law Enforcement Task Force 



ANDY HSIA-CORON, Vice President 
Unit 3 
,, California State Employees Association 



JOHNNIE MAE CONNER 

NAACP and other Organizations 

NORMA MARTINEZ, President 

Los Angeles Parole Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 



Ill 

1 APPEARANCES ( CONTINUED ^ 

2 RUDY BERMUDEZ 

Los Angeles Chapter 

3 Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

4 CHRIS GONZALES, President 
Sacramento-Folsom Chapter 

5 Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

6 ROBERT M. CEBALLOS, Northern California Vice President 
Mexican-American Correctional Association 

7 

GIACOMO A. MEOLA, State Vice President 

8 California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

9 DONNA McKINNEY, President 
ij Women in Criminal Justice 

10 

SUZIE COHEN, Legislative Advocate 

11 California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association 

12 CYNTHIA DE MARS, Correctional Officer 
Folsom State Prison 

13 

CARMEN ROJAS, Correctional Officer 

14 Folsom State Prison 

15 REBECCA FEAGINS, Former Inmate 
Community Connection 

16 

FRANK G. FORD, Correctional Officer 

17 Folsom State Prison 

18 BOB BALES, Retired Correctional Officer 

19 MIKE CORCORAN, Correctional Officer 
Folsom State Prison 

20 

OTILA VEGA, X-Ray Technician 
21 California Rehabilitational Center at Norco 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



ANITA M. BERGER, Former X-Ray Technician 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 



18 

19 
20 
21 



24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



INDEX 



Proceedings 

Governor ' s Appointees t 

JERRY B. EPSTEIN, Member 

California Transportation Commission 

Background and Qualifications 

Importance of Aviation Facilities 

Report on Project Delivery 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Excessive Influence on Commission 
by Governor's Office 

Statements by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Experiences before Commission 

California vs. Other States in Transportation 
Funding 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Highway Needs vs . Funding 

Fast-tracking Projects 

Prunedale Project 

Motion to Confirm 

Committee Action 

DEAN R. DUNPHY, Member 

California Transportation Commission 

Background and Qualifications 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Insulation from Executive Pressure 

Stipulation that Complaints Came 
during Previous Administration 



IV 

Page 
1 



1 
1 
2 
2 



5 
6 

7 
7 
7 
8 
9 

10 
10 

11 
11 



V 



- Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

3 Great Train, San Jose to Sacramento 13 

4 Rate Setting Authority 13 

5 Need for More Cars on Train 14 

6 Cost of Widening Interstate 5 16 

7 Motion to Confirm 17 

8 Committee Action 18 

9 JAMES H. GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections 19 

io 

Witnesses in Support 
11 

FRANK NAVA 
12 Hispanic Law Enforcement Task Force 19 



Statement by SENATOR MELLO re: 

Acceptance of $30,000 per Year 

Pay Cut 20 

Commitment to Department 21 



13 

14 

15 

16 

ANDY HSIA-CORON, Vice President 
17 Unit 3 

California State Employees Association 22 



Personal Responsibility Curriculum Project 23 
Hostility to Educational Innovation 23 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 24 



19 

20 

21 

JOHNNIE MAE CONNER 

22 NAACP and Other Organizations 25 

23 NORMA MARTINEZ, President 
Los Angeles Parole Chapter 

24 Chicano Correctional Workers Association 27 

25 Disparate Treatment of Hispanic Parole 

Agent Staff in Region Three 28 

26 

Recent Appointment of Qualified Latinas 29 

27 

28 



VI 



2 RUDY BERMUDEZ, Secretary 
Los Angeles Chapter 

3 Chicano Correctional Workers Association 29 

4 CHRIS GONZALES, President 
Sacramento-Folsom Chapter 

5 Chicano Correctional Workers Association 31 

6 ROBERT CEBALLOS, Vice President 
Northern California 

7 Mexican-American Correctional Association 34 

8 GIACOMO ANTHONY MEOLA, State Vice President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 36 
9 

DONNA McKINNEY, President 

10 Women in Crimnial Justice 37 

11 Development of New Management Training 

Program at Department 38 

12 

Need for Cultural Change in Department 39 

13 

SUZIE COHEN, Legislative Advocate 
14 California Probation, Parole and 

Correctional Association 39 

15 

16 

CYNTHIA DE MARS, Correctional Officer 
n Folsom State Prison 40 

18 Victim of Sexual Harassment by Supervisor 40 

19 Reported Repeatedly 40 

2n Need for Special Tracking to Identify 

Repeat Offenders 41 

21 

Can't Wait Ten Years for Change 41 

Folsom' s "Good Old Boys" 41 

Right to Work in Nonhostile Environment 42 



22 
23 
24 



Witnesses with Concerns: 



Supervisors Using Position to Blackmail for 

25 Sexual Favors 42 

26 Need to Deal Harshly with Issue 44 

27 |! 
28 



Vll 



2 Questions by SENATOR ROBERTI re: 

3 Secondary Harassment 44 

4 "Retirement Gift" for Retiring 

Sergeant 44 

5 

Removal of Ammunition from Firearm 45 
6 

Taking Photographs 45 

7 

Report Filed through Chain of 

8 Command 46 

9 Response of Female Lieutenant 46 

10 Provision of Counsel to Perpetrator 47 

11 Response by MR. GOMEZ 48 

12 Behavior by Supervisors Unacceptable 4 8 

13 Commitment to Become Involved Personally 4 9 

14 Clear Harassment 4 9 

15 Statements by SENATOR MELLO re: 

16 Testimony during Confirmation Hearing 

of Warden Campoy at Folsom Prison 49 

17 

18 
19 

20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 

I' 

26 

27 



Response by MR. GOMEZ 50 

Need to Change Attitudes 50 

Questions by SENATOR MELLO of MR. GOMEZ re: 

Procedure when Allegations Brought Forward 51 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS of MR. GOMEZ re: 

Training or Prevention Programs 52 

Need to Hear from Individuals 53 

Majority of Employees Are Good 53 

Tools to Encourage Behavior Change 54 

Termination without Hearing 54 



Vlll 



2 CARMEN ROJAS, Correctional Officer 

Folsom State Prison 55 



Avenues of Information to Director 56 



Lack of Schooling of Employees in Where 

5 to Turn for Help 57 

6 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI of MR. GOMEZ re: 

7 First Recourse for Victims 57 

8 Ability to File at Central Office 58 

9 Notice of Event and Formal Complaint 58 
10 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS of MR. GOMEZ re: 

l! Use of Ombudsman 59 

12 Need for Department to Set up Training and 
Counseling System for Victims of Sexual 

13 Harassment 60 

14 Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI of MR. GOMEZ re: 

15 Training about Possible Harassment 61 

16 Need to Provide Counseling to 

Victims 61 

17 

Harassment not Pervasive throughout 

18 Whole Department 62 

19 Statements by MR. GOMEZ re: MS. ROJAS ' 

Situation 63 

20 

Demotion of Perpetrator within 

21 49 Days of Complaint 63 

22 Eventual Termination 63 

23 Response by MS. ROJAS 63 

24 Good Old Boys at Folsom 63 

25 Unawareness of Avenues for Help 64 

26 Other Harassment at Folsom 64 

27 State Personnel Board Hearings not 

Open to Public 65 



-i 



8 



IX 



2 Response by MR. GOMEZ 65 

3 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS of MS. ROJAS re: 

4 Job and Duties 66 

5 Where Armed 6 6 

6 Teams or Pairs 66 

7 Location of Harassment 66 

8 Tenure at Folsom 67 

9 Previous Assignment 67 

10 Absense of Similar Behavior 

at Vacaville 68 

11 

12 

13 

14 

REBECCA FEAGINS, Former Inmate 

15 Community Connection 70 

16 Assaults and Sexual Harassment by 

CDC Correctional Staff on Inmates 70 

17 

18 
19 
20 
21 



When Did Harassment First Start 68 

Warnings by Other Female Staff 68 

Cost to Taxpayers 69 



Background 70 

Abuse while in Prison 71 

Escalation of Sexual Harassment 72 

Loss of 602 Complaint Forms 72 

Rights of Inmates 72 

22 

Specific Cases 73 

23 

Request for Promise of No Retaliation or 

24 Retribution if Names are Supplied 74 

25 No Exception for Inmates in Rape Definitions 

of Penal Code 75 

26 

Request for Immediate Investigation of Issues 76 

27 

28 



Prisons not Allowing MCC Church to be 

Represented 77 

CIW Only Institution with MCC 79 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS of MR. GOMEZ re: 

Request to Investigate Witness's 

Allegations 80 

Religion in Institutions 80 

Response by MS. FEAGINS re: 

Gay and Lesbian Volunteers in 

Northern California Institutions 81 

Request for Guarantee in Exchange 

for Names of Inmate Victims 81 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 81 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

GREGORY FORD, Correctional Officer 

Folsom State Prison 83 

Background 84 

Creation of Data Retrieval Program for 

Department 84 

Violence Management Program 85 

Positive Feedback from Prior 

Director and Administration 85 

Positive Use of System in 

Australia 86 

Threats from Supervisors 86 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 88 

Suggestion by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI to 

Re-submit Program to Department 88 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Report from Australia on Program 89 



XI 



24 
25 
26 

->i 



2 ROBERT BALES, Retired Correctional Officer 90 

3 Involvement in Whistle Blower Situation 9 

4 Investigation at CIM 91 

5 Special Service Agents ' Relationship 

with Managers being Investigated 92 

6 

Two People Providing Evidence at 
7 Investigation Transferred to Other 

Facilities 93 

8 

Response by MR. GOMEZ 94 

9 

MIKE CORCORAN, Correctional Officer 

10 Folsom State Prison 94 

11 Wasteful Practices at Folsom 95 

12 Lack of Substantive Changes 95 

13 No New Cabinet Administrators 95 

14 Opposition to All Senator Presley's 

Legislation of Last Year 96 

15 

Failure to Take Disciplinary Action against 

16 Upper Eschelon Staff 96 

17 Waste Problems at Folsom 97 

18 Failure to Exercise Moral Leadership 99 

19 Request for Number of Sexual Harassment 

Cases Settled by Department 100 

20 

Specific Folsom Case 100 

21 

Questions by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 
22 

Relevance of Sandoval Case 102 

23 

Victims Targets for Further Harassment 102 

Low Morale 103 

Lack of Standardization in Department 104 

Inability of Corrections to Investigate 104 



Xll 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



Response by MR. GOMEZ 105 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Specific Allegations 105 

Personnel Allegations 106 

Investigation Rumor Mill 107 

OTILA VEGA, X-Ray Technician 

California Rehabilitational Center at Norco 108 

Victim of Inmate Rape and Sexual Harassment 108 

Harassment by MTA 108 

Report to Head of Nursing 108 

Nothing Resulted from Investigation 109 

Personal Losses Due to Department 109 

Need to Secure Private Attorney 109 

Termination 109 

Reason for Termination and Adverse 

Action Due to Report of Rape 110 

Various Reports 110 

Medical Malpractice at Institution 112 

Abusive Treatment by Chief Medical Officer 113 

Old, Faulty Equipment 114 

Permanent Physical Disabilities 

Due to Equipment Blowing Up 114 

Denial of Raises 114 

Testimony at SPB Hearing Labeling Victim 

as "Lesbian Dyke" 115 

SPB Decision to Reinstate 115 

No Paycheck to Date 116 



Xlll 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



2 Hiring of Uncertified Radiological Tech 

to Replace Victim 117 

3 

Department's Liability in Possible 

4 Litigation 117 

5 Reinstatement Work Shift 117 

6 Stress Leave in April, '89, and Inability 

to Return to Work 118 

7 

Return to Work 119 

8 

Discussion by Employees of Confidential 
9 Matters with Inmate Workers 120 

10 Inmate's Information on Drugs in 

Institution 
11 

Report of Security Breach 
12 

Missing Syringes 

Multiple Unnecessary X-Rays of Inmates 

Possible Murder Conspiracy 
Current Positions of Former Harassers 
Lack of Health Coverage Presently 
Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reason for Lack of Health Coverage 125 



13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Told She Was Not Officially 

20 Reinstated as of Last Week 125 

21 What is Necessary for Official 

Reinstatement with Department 125 



Told Check Is in the Mail 125 
Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

Testimony at Former Hearings 126 

Rejection of Confirmations 126 



Need for Legislature to Hear Such 
11 Testimony 126 



120 


120 


121 


121 


123 


124 


124 



28 



XIV 



2 Sensitivity of Appointee to Issues 127 

3 Response by MS. VEGA 127 

4 Unresponsiveness of Director 127 

5 Need for Director to be Aware 127 

6 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

7 Need for Many People to be Fired 128 

8 Treatment of Nursing Supervisor 128 

9 ANITA BERGER, Former X-Ray Technician 129 

10 Fired in 1989 from CIM at Chino 129 

11 Allegation of Paranoid Disorder in '83 130 

12 Return in '84, X-Ray Department in Disarray 130 

13 Call to Radiologic Health 131 

14 Drinking Crowd 131 

15 Lack of Promotion to Senior Position 132 

16 History of Adverse Action 132 

17 Post Office Incident 133 

18 Lack of Police Report 135 

19 30-Day Suspension 135 

20 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

21 Meetings with MR. GOMEZ to Complain 136 

22 Calls to MR. DENNINGER 136 

23 Post Office Incident 137 

24 Secret Files 138 

25 Reports to State Senators 138 

26 Discussion with MR. THURMAN 140 
27 

28 



XV 



1 

2 Statement of CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

3 Most Memorable Hearing 142 

4 Conclusion by MR. GOMEZ 14 3 

5 Regarding VEGA Testimony 14 3 

6 Termination and Appeal 14 3 

7 Technician with Limited License 143 

8 Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

9 Hiring of Unqualified Persons 143 

10 Back Pay Issue 144 

11 Check Still Unprocessed 145 

12 Response to Attorney's Letters 145 

13 I Promise to Investigation Allegation 

of Drug Selling at Institution 146 



24 

25 



27 
28 



Investigation of Assault by Inmate 146 

Health Coverage 147 



14 

15 

16 

First Knowledge of Accusation of 

17 Rape by Inmate 147 

18 Response by MS. VEGA 148 

19 Request for Sacramento 

Investigation of Rape 148 

20 

21 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS of 

22 MS. VEGA re: 

23 Supplying Information to 

Union and Association Reps 149 



Nepotism in Hiring 148 



Lack of Responsiveness 149 



Latest Letter from Department 
26 Demanding Presence of Another Female 150 



XVI 



- Tremendous Challenge in Department 151 

3 Difficult Hearings 152 

4 Many Good Employees in Department 152 

5 Accolades for Senate Staff 153 

6 Statements by CHAIRMAN ROBERTI re: 

7 Intention to Vote for Confirmation 153 

8 Need to Reform Department 153 

9 Intention to Oversee that Changes Occur 154 

10 Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

11 Concern about Possible Retaliation 155 

12 Concern for Whistle-Blower Witnesses 156 

13 Response by MR. GOMEZ re: 

14 Letter Sent after CHACON Testimony 156 

15 Obligation as Employer 156 

16 Statements by SENATOR MELLO re: 

17 Commitment to Stop Harassment 

18 Mission of Department of Corrections 

19 Need for Educational Programs 

20 Closure of Programs at Soledad 

21 Motion to Confirm 

22 Committee Action 

23 Termination of Proceedings 

24 Certificate of Reporter 
25 
26 
27 



157 


157 


158 


159 


160 


160 


160 


161 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



1 
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Governor ' s appointees appearing 
today, we will go to Mr. Jerry B. Epstein, Member of the 
California Transportation Commission. 

We will ask you what we ask all the Governor's 
appointees, and that is why you feel you're qualified to assume 
this position? 

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Am I allowed to read a short statement? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm very pleased to be here today 
seeking confirmation of my appointment to the California 
Transportation Commission. I have a long-standing interest in 
transportation matters, and I'm proud to have this very special 
opportunity to serve the people of the State of California. 

Since I retired from active real estate construction 
some 20 years ago, I've enjoyed giving back to my community by 
serving on a number of local and state commissions and 
charitable boards. Most notably, I served for five years, 
between 1985 and 1990, on the City of Los Angeles Board of 
Airport Commissioners. 

As you might know, the City of Los Angeles owns four 
airports: LAX; Van Nuys , the largest general aviation facility 
in the world; Ontario; and Palmdale. The economic impact of 
these airports is over 42 billion in economic activity and over 
450,000 jobs. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



2 

While President of the Airport Commission, I was 
instrumental in opening up the Palmdale Regional Airport to 
commercial air traffic. 

We desperately need additional passenger and air 
cargo facilities in Southern California to alleviate the 
tremendous ground and air traffic problems that we have today. 
The Bay Area and San Diego, for example, also need to focus more 
attention on the vital role that aviation facilities play on our 
state's economy and on integrating our highway mass transit and 
aviation transportation systems. This is one issue I bring with 
me to the California Transportation Commission. 

I also serve as President of the Los Angeles State 
Building Authority. We just completed the Ronald Reagan State 
Building in downtown Los Angeles, and I'm proud to say that, for 
the first time in 15 years, a state building came in on time and 
within the budget. Last year, the Legislature, you gentlemen, 
approved unanimously, and the Governor did sign your bill, which 
will permit the Authority to build an annex to the Ronald Reagan 
Building. 

I bring this to your attention to inform you why I 
have taken on an assignment by my colleagues on the California 
Transportation Commission to examine the problems of Caltrans 
project delivery. I submitted my report on project delivery at 
our March meeting, which I hope that you've had a chance to 
read, which the Commission has adopted and circulated to you 
Members of the Legislature and other interested parties. I hope 
that the Legislature will take a close look at my 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



3 
recommendations, which I believe can help Caltrans operate more 
efficiently and more effectively. 

Particularly during this recession and time of 
economic distress, it's critical that we jump-start the economy 
through public works, and in particular, through the 
construction of transportation infrastructure which will meet 
the public's demands for congestion management. 

So, as you can tell, I'm very excited about and I'm 
very committed to the positive role that the California 
Transportation Commission can play in our state in the next 
several years . I look forward to working on the issues of 
intermodal transportation links and systems, including airports, 
highway access, high speed rail, and project delivery, as well 
as the wide range of other questions which come before our 
Commission. And I look forward to working with you Members of 
the Legislature on transportation policy. 

Once again, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to 
be here, and I'll be pleased to answer any questions that you 
might have . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any questions of Mr. Epstein? 

The Senate Advisory Commission on Cost Control in 
State Government came up with a finding in its 1990 report to us 
that the Commission may be excessively influenced by the 
Governor's Office. We have had cases, in the past 
Administration, of the Governor just directly contacting the 
Commissioner, and the Commissioner being unsophisticated enough 
to even tell the press that they had changed their position 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



4 
based on the Governor's phone call — or, take that back, his 
staff's phone call. 

What concerns us is, the California Transportation 
Commission was intended to insulate these decisions from 
political pressure. So, instead of a mixture of Legislative- 
Executive pressure, we now have what appears to be a commission 
which appears to be rather docile in the face of Executive 
pressure. 

It has become so bad that I think Senator Kopp, who, 
I might add, is not looking at this from a partisan point of 
view, wants to totally revamp the Commission. Its intended 
point is to act as an independent decision maker, not taking 
into consideration pork barrel geographic considerations as to 
location of roads, and it has sort of degenerated into Governor- 
specific projects. 

Do you have a response to this? Am I wrong? 

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, sir, I'm a neophyte as far as 
being on the Commission. I've only been on since August. 

The people that I have met on the Commission, in my 
viewpoint, anyway -- I've served on a lot of commissions — are 
all very astute, very dedicated people who are there for the 
same reason that I'm there: if I can be of any help to 
alleviate the problems of congestion, the problems of mass 
transit whether it be highways or intermodal rail transit, or 
anything else, I know where I'm from. We are drowning in our 
traffic. I know where I'm from, we are frustrated sitting in a 
parking lot they call a freeway. I know where I come from, I'm 



5 
1 

ready to move . 

I spent, as I said, five years on an airport 

commission, and it was only in my last year that we were able to 

4 

open up Palmdale, which I think is the -- is the answer. I 
5 j 

think that we had a very courageous Airport Commission some 25 



6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



years ago that bought 18,000 acres out in Palmdale, and that 
will be, in my estimation, if they'll do what I hope they will, 
and turn that into our main regional airport. We have a nine by 
three mile rectangle, that if they're smart enough to keep 
people from moving in there, will not cause any noise or air 
pollution. But we've got to get people there. If I can get HOV 
lanes in there, we can get a mass transit system in there, 
there's a lot of things. 

So, in answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, I don't 
know if I've answered it or not, but I'm not a politician. I'm 
strictly from the private sector, and I look at it that way. 
And I call it as I see it. I don't know any other way to play 
the game. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Are there any other questions of 
Mr. Epstein? 

SENATOR MELLO: I'm not going to disagree with the 
Chairman, but I just want to share some of my experiences I've 
had. 

My district, of course, goes from Alameda County 
clear down to the end of Monterey County. 

I've appeared before the Commission just a great 
number of times. We have a lot of highway projects in Monterey 



13 
14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



6 

County, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties. And I 
think I know all the Commissioners, you know, fairly well. Not 
as real close friends, but I've watched them operate. 

And there's people on there that the Governor can 
sway them to some extent, you know, once they're confirmed and 
appointed, I don't know that that's happening. But they are -- 
they've been very responsive, and I've sat there while other 
projects would come on, too. 

I find them very independent. People like, well, 
Mr. Levy is no longer on there, I don't believe, but Joe Duff ell 
and — 

MR. EPSTEIN: Joe Duffell, I would say, is 
independent . 

SENATOR MELLO: — and our latest — the professor 
out here from Davis . 

MR. EPSTEIN: Dan Fessler. 

SENATOR MELLO: Fessler, a very bright person. But I 
don't know how you could sway him if it's something he didn't 
fell, you know, the facts were there to support it. 

I think you've touched on the problem about sitting 
in a parking lot called a freeway. We've just had 20 years of 
under funding for our transportation, both freeways, highways, 
and rail, and other alternate forms of transportation. 

Gasoline prices in Europe and around the world are 
around 2.50 a gallon, and the tax that goes to the government to 
support their roads are about a dollar and a half. If you look 
at the National State Legislature's comparison on a state-by- 



state basis, California is 50th, 5-0; we are the last of the 50 

-> 

states putting money into transportation. 
3 

And I think there lies the problem. We're just, you 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

n \ 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 
20 

21 

22 

24 
25 
26 

27 



know, I know what happens in Los Angeles occasionally when I get 
down there, and San Francisco, Santa Clara — gridlock at those 
peak hours. And I just wish we had more money to spend to help 
accommodate the needs around the state. 

That's really where I think the problem is. We 
finally voted in, you know, more funds for transportation, but 
we're still, I would say, $25-30 billion behind. That's the 
last figure that was given to me of what our highway needs are 
in California. 

Is that a pretty accurate figure? 

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, sir, it is. 

I couldn't agree with you more. We -- that's one of 
the things that we're looking into, again, is project delivery. 
Why do we have a half a billion dollars in the bank when it 
ought to be out on the roads getting people to work, getting 
things happening? 

SENATOR MELLO: Well, they're moving on that 500 
million in fast-tracking projects right now to create the jobs; 
isn't that correct? 

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR MELLO: So, I think there might be some of 
this. Well, the other day I was up. There was a move on to try 
to take money away from the Prunedale project. 

MR. EPSTEIN: No, that passed, Senator. 



8 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR MELLO: No, I know it passed, but there was a 
move on. The move was on to try to divert some money into 2 80 
and finish that project up in San Francisco. And a very 
distinguished Member of the Legislature was there, and he -- in 
fact, when he got through making his presentation, they acceded 
to his demands pretty well, I guess, and I told the Commission, 
I "I'd like to have the speaker present my program from Monterey 
County. " 

But we thank you for approving it also. But it was a 

case of a much-needed project. I'm not saying his project 

i 

i wasn't worthy, but we've been going through the STIP program, 
waiting and waiting and waiting, and here we came up to a point 
where we almost lost it. But we didn't lose it, thanks to the 
Commission and your Executive Director. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Is there any opposition in the 
audience? 

Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move the Committee recommend 
approval of the confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Senator Beverly moves the 
confirmation of Jerry B. Epstein be recommended to the Floor. 

Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

20 

I 

21 
22 
23 
24 



9 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is three to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR MELLO: Can we leave the roll open for 
Senator Petris? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Okay, confirmation will be 
recommended to the Floor. We're waiting to complete the roll. 

Secretary will call the roll one more time. Senator 
Petris moves it be lifted. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What are we voting on? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Epstein's confirmation to the 
California Transportation Commission. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can I ask him a few questions, about 
a half hour? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Four to zero; confirmation is 



25 

recommended to the Floor. 
26 

Congratulations . 

21 

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

28 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



10 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Dean Dunphy, Member of the 
California Transportation Commission, another flight conflict. 
That's because Mr. Gomez is going to last about three hours. 

Please, Mr. Dunphy. 

MR. DUNPHY: Mr. Chairman, anticipating your question 
of why you [sic] think that I should serve, let me just give you 
about a 60-second background on myself, ending with the 
principal reason. 

I'm a graduate from the University of Southern 
California in business finance. I started a construction 
company in San Diego in 1960, from which I retired in 1991. 

I have served variously at the request of the present 
Governor in many capacities in San Diego, one of which was as 
the President of the Center City Development Corporation, which 
is the operating arm of the Redevelopment Agency for the City. 
jThat was from 1976 to 1984; I was President of that organization 
for seven of the eight years I was there. 

Also, I served as President of the Chamber of 
Commerce in San Diego for two years . 

Additionally, in the social area, for over 20 years 
I've been a board member of the Central Advisory Committee of 
the Salvation Army. I as its Chair for two years. That's 
important because I understand the needs of those less 
advantaged people in transit as well. 

Following my service on the Center City Development 
Corporation, for a period of six years, from 1985 until 1991, as 
a matter of fact, the same month of my appointment to this 



11 

1 

'Commission, I served as the Chairman of the Board of the San 
2 

Diego Transit Corporation. And therein lies the principal 



3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

I 
9 

ij 
11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



reason why I think that I'm qualified. 

I have an orientation toward, and if I have a bias in 
transportation in is towards transit, it is toward bus and rail, 
but even more importantly, it's toward an integrated 
transportation system. And I feel very strongly about the fact 
that transit is and should a coordinated effort. 

And in that regard, I hope to serve the Legislature 
and the Governor. I ' d be happy to answer questions. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Will you insulate yourself from Executive pressure? 

MR. DUNPHY: Well, I'm happy to answer that question. 
I wish that I had got the question you gave Jerry. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Same question. 

MR. DUNPHY: First, I've -- I have known and worked 
with Pete Wilson since 1968. I worked with him on his second 
campaign when he served in the Assembly. And I've served him as 
-- when he was the Mayor, not as a Senator, and as the Governor. 
'Fortunately, I've been appointed to this — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I want to stipulate, most of our 
complaints came during the prior Administration, not Governor 
Wilson. 

MR. DUNPHY: Let me tell you something that I know 
about the Governor. And that is, for eight years I was the 
point man for redevelopment of downtown San Diego, a fairly 
ambitious and important project. During those eight years, Pete 



12 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Wilson didn't tell me once what to do, but he did ask me to get 
the job done. He supported me in the appointment of the people 
who served on the board, and with the freedom that a businessman 
can exercise in effectively a redevelopment, which is a real 
estate and finance proposition, we were able to effectively do 
it. 

I'm sure you've visited San Diego and seen what we 
have brought about . 

Since I've been on this Commission, Pete Wilson has 
not told me what to do or what to vote on. 

And in further elaboration on the question about 
Executive influence for specific projects, we just finished the 
STIP. And when you get finished with the north-south split, and 
I the county minimums , there is really very little opportunity for 
^selective projects. 

And I have had no influence from the Governor's 
Office on what specific project to approve or not. I just don't 
think — he's not that kind of a guy. 

However, with the experience that I've just detailed, 
you're darned right I would listen to him. But by the same 
token, we are not short of any suggestions from Senator Kopp and 
others in the Legislature. 

So, I hope that I can perform a somewhat judicious 
role of listening to both and advising both. And I think that 
that's what the Legislature intended when they set up the CTC, 
I is we are to advise and counsel in the best way possible, and 
let the Legislature and the Governor act. 



13 
1 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Dunphy. 
2 

Senator Petris. 
3 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm sorry I missed what went before, 

4 

so if I'm repeating. 
5 

I'm interested in the Great Train from San Jose to 
6 

here. A tremendous success, much more -- you're in charge of 
7 

that, I guess? 

8 li 

MR. DUNPHY: It was funded in part by CTC, correct. 

9 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which agency? Isn't it Caltrans? 

10 

MR. DUNPHY: Well, I believe Amtrak is going to be 

11 

the operator, but the funds came in part — 

12 

SENATOR PETRIS: Out of the bond sale, the Hannigan 

bill. 

14 

MR. DUNPHY: Yes, the 116 bonds; correct. 
15 

SENATOR PETRIS: I thought it was administered by 
16 

Caltrans . Am I wrong? 
17 

MR. DUNPHY: It is. We do not administer. We 
18 

allocate. 
19 

SENATOR PETRIS: You just allocate the money and 



20 
21 



that's all? 

MR. DUNPHY: We allocate the funds, and the 



22 

Department operates under contract with Amtrak operating the 
23 

service. 
24 

SENATOR PETRIS: Who sets the rates, Amtrak or the 
25 j 

state? 
26 

MR. DUNPHY: I have no idea who sets the rates. 
27 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's not in your shop. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



14 

MR. DUNPHY: No, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, then, I can't ask you the next 
question I had. 

MR. DUNPHY: I think it's a very favorable rate, and 
it certainly — as I understand, it's almost $16 one way, and a 
dollar for a return trip. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But they're planning to double it, 
and that was my question. 

MR. DUNPHY: Well, I hope they do, because I hope — 

I 

SENATOR PETRIS: They're making lots of money right 
now, according to the reports I've heard. 

MR. DUNPHY: I'm surprised. I would think that it 
would be fairly heavily subsidized. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Not from the accounts that I've 
received. 

MR. DUNPHY: I have not seen the operating report, so 
I'm speaking from my perception that that is a very good rate 
for that service, from -- through the Capitol corridor from San 
Diego — or rather Sacramento. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, well, we'll have to find out 
elsewhere, I guess. 

MR. DUNPHY: I'm afraid so. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe you and I should take a ride 
on it, then we'll know better. 

MR. DUNPHY: I'd love to, and quite frankly, I'd like 
to see them get a couple more cars on that. Three cars is — 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's not enough. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



15 

MR. DUNPHY: I mean, it's nice, but it's not going to 
do it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They used to have nine or ten cars 
many years ago. And I used to ride the train in the early days 
when I was in the Assembly, at which time it was one car. 
Assemblyman Frank Lanterman and I used to take it from Oakland. 
He'd come up by train from L.A. because he wouldn't fly, and 
he'd tell me about the old days when they had a diner and they 
had nine or ten cars, and they had a lot of Legislators, and the 
public, and lobbyists, and newspaper people. It was very 
popular at that time as well. 

Anyway, we'll pursue it another time since it's not 
directly in your shop. 

MR. DUNPHY: Well I -- it gives me an opportunity to 
again suggest that my inclination is toward encouraging those 
transit elements which will increase traffic and get people off 
of the highways. The highways really are jammed to an 
overloading. 

From San Diego to Los Angeles, which I'm more 
familiar with, we're running nine trains a day there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's been very successful. 

MR. DUNPHY: They're doing very well, right. And it 
took -- it took a lot of effort to get up to the nine trains. 
We're trying to add a tenth, but there are some scheduling 
problems in getting there. 

But the frequency and dependability of the travel is 
what will encourage people to use that, and of course, balanced 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



ii 16 

II 

with a reasonable rate. 

But I think we have to do more in transit. It's just 
imperative. 

I'll give an example that I have a great deal of 
difficulty with. We recently reviewed and environmental impact 
report on the widening of Interstate 5 in Orange County between 
Highway 91 and 22. And the cost — the forecasted cost, which 
is accelerated for several years, is $100 million a mile for a 
widening of a freeway. And when it gets to Los Angeles, there 
is no present plan approved for widening into that area. And I 
think that there's going to be a traffic jam that will be the 
mother of all traffic jams if we don't do something to provide 
for continuity and a flow through that area. 

It's the dollars, $100 million a mile. It's just 
earth-shaking in my mind. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What is that, property acquisition 
mostly? 

MR. DUNPHY: About 40-45 percent, if I remember 
correctly, is right of way, and the balance is construction. 

I just don't think we can keep spending money like 
that. We have to find an alternate way to move people and 
goods . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, we keep saying that up here, 
but if we don't provide the alternate, we can't get people out 
of their cars, and we can't complain about the fact that they 
don't get out of their cars. We've got to have adequate public 
-- an alternate system. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 

1 
20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

- J 
26 

27 



17 

MR. DUNPHY: You have to have an acceptable 
alternate. That's what it needs. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MR. DUNPHY: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Is there any opposition in the 
audience? 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move approval of the appointment. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves approval of 
Mr. Jerry Epstein's confirmation to the — 

MR . DUNPHY : Dunphy . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Excuse me. Epstein two, Dunphy 
none. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Recommends Mr. Dunphy ' s 
confirmation to the Senate. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is three to zero; 



18 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Congratulations . 

MR. DUNPHY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'd better not declare the vote, 
and Senator Petris moves that the roll be held open pending 
Senator Mello's return. 

The confirmation of Robert L. Harvey, Member of the 

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, has been rescheduled for 

Wednesday, April the 2 9th. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 

acted upon legislative items 
12 

on the agenda. ] 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Mello moves that the call 
be lifted on the confirmation of Dean Dunphy, Member of the 
California Transportation Commission. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello aye. 

■ 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

Now we have the confirmation of James H. Gomez, 
Director of the Department of Corrections. 

We heard Mr. Gomez last week, and we still had a 
couple of witnesses to go. So, is there anyone in the audience 
who chooses to speak in support of Mr. Gomez's confirmation? 
Please come forward. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



I 

19 

MR. NAVA: Senator Roberti, Members, I appreciate the 
opportunity to appear before you. 

My name is Frank Nava. I'm here representing the 
Hispanic Law Enforcement Task Force in support of the 
confirmation of Mr. Gomez for Director of the Department of 
Corrections . 

I want to preface my brief comments by, I guess, 
reminding you, if I may, that the Hispanic Law Enforcement Task 
Force is a coalition of California state and national 
organizations which includes: the Latino Peace Officers 
Association; the Chicano Correctional Workers Association; La 
Ley, which is a Los Angeles-based police organization; the 
Mexican-American Correctional Association; the League of United 
Latino American Citizens; the Mexican-American Political 
Association; La Raza Lawyers Association; the Mexican-American 
Legal Defense and Education Fund; and CAFE de California. 

The primary goal of this Task Force is to advocate 

for the increased representation of Hispanics in the criminal 

justice system, particularly in the law enforcement profession. 

The Task Force has worked very closely over the years with the 

highest level policy makers of state law enforcement agencies on 
j 
issues of concern to the Hispanic law enforcement professionals. 

One of those policy makers, I am pleased to say, is 
Mr. Gomez. The Task Force has had the good fortune of working 
jwith Mr. Gomez prior to his current appointment, when he was 
Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections. 

He has always maintained open communications and made 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

22 | 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



20 
himself available to listen and discuss issues of concern to the 
member organizations, particularly those issues impacting 
Hispanic representation within the Department. We have met with 
Mr. Gomez regarding some very sensitive issues, and in all 
circumstances he has been objective, straight-forward, and 
indeed, fair. 

In previous discussions with him, we actually 
wondered, you know. He comes to us, again, from Santa Clara -- 
a nice area, a beautiful place, a cushy job, if I may — to 
this . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. NAVA: I don't know. But regardless, I think we 
all agree that Mr. Gomez comes to the department with extensive 
managerial and administrative experiences which have earned him 
the support of the correctional community. 

The Task Force is confident that he will continue to 
serve the people of California well as the Director of the 
Department of Corrections. Therefore, we respectfully urge you 
to confirm Mr. Gomez as Director of Corrections. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Nava. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: I'm not going to ask you a question, 
but in your statement about Santa Clara County, where he served 
as the Assistant Juvenile Probation Officer before coming here, 
you failed to mention that he was making $135,000 a year there, 
and here, I think, it's $105,000. Not bad, but $30,000 less 
money . 



4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



21 

I asked him at the time, because I've known Mr. Gomez 
for years, "My goodness, you're going to take a $30,000 cut to 
go up and run our correctional system?" 

MR. NAVA: Not only that, but he's going to get some 
gray hairs, I assure you, from it. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR MELLO: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, he's not. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR MELLO: Not too many, maybe not on the top, 
but the point is, he told me then, and I've known that -- I 
mean, why would you take a $30,000 cut in today's -- just like 
why would you want to run for this kind of office here. 

In his case, he's got a deep commitment, I think, to 
this profession, to the jobs, and what he's been doing. That's 
:the only reason I can figure out why he's want to do it, and 
leave lovely, wonderful Santa Clara County, that I represent a 
big part of. 

But I just wanted to add that to your statement. 

MR. NAVA: And we agree wholeheartedly. 

SENATOR MELLO: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Nava . 

Anyone else? Please come forward. 

MR. HSIA-CORON: I don't know if this is the 
appropriate place for me to speak if you're conditionally 
supporting somebody? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: This is the time and place, right. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 



22 

MR. HSIA-CORON: Mr. Gomez may find with friends like 
me, who needs enemies. 

My name is Andy Hsia-Coron. I represent the teachers 
in the California Department of Corrections. I know Senator 
Mello well from meetings. He's my Senator in my area. 

And we have been working with the Department over the 
last couple of years — I know you've heard some from Perry 
Kenny last week from CSEA -- to try to improve the programs, 
especially in regards to preparing people to get out on the 
;street and function, and not come back. 

We had a very open ear in Director Gomez when we were 
there, and, you know, I'd like to say I can't blame Jim Gomez 
for the deteriorated conditions that he finds in the Department 
of Corrections. We can only blame him if he doesn't clean up 
the conditions in the Department of Corrections. 

And anybody who ' s looked at the Department knows that 
things are in serious shape. You know, we've got 135 percent 
increase in personnel years over the last ten years, where the 
rest of state government got less than -- less than 30; I think 
jlit's close to 20. And it's drawing increasing amounts of a 
budget that need not grow. And I think that's the issue that 
our union is concerned about. 

We represent people outside the Department of 
Corrections, so we don't have a great stake in just seeing one 
department grow at the expense of others. 

And what I'd like to talk to you about very briefly, 
if you'll indulge me, is that the -- in other Departments of 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



23 
Correction, especially in Canada, we're finding increasing 
evidence that we can keep people out of prison using very little 
more resources than we're using right now. And keep them out, 
not — you know, actually being contributors to society, doing 
some pro-social kinds of things, rather than just not being a 
risk to folks . 

And during the period of time that we worked with the 
Director, we moved forward on a project called the Personal 
Responsibility Curriculum Program that invested about a half a 
million to a million of the state's money in trying to develop a 
program similar to the Canadian program, and similar to one that 
worked in the Youth Authority that cut parole costs in half. 
We're still strongly supportive of that. 

I should congratulate or thank Mr. Gomez. He had 
a meeting with us about a month ago on the project, and he 
agreed to move forward with the pilot program. 

Our concerns, and I hope you share those concerns -- 
we also gave some letters to both Senator Roberti and Senator 
Mello about the project — is that for innovation to happen in 
this Department, it's going to -- as Ben Franklin said, you can 
put all your eggs in one basket, but you'd better watch that 
basket very carefully. And in the case of the Department of 
Corrections, there's a great deal of hostility by the folks who 
run the individual institutions to educational innovation. I 
hear that from a lot of sources, and I know that from personal 
experience. 

And I would ask you to inquire with Mr. Gomez how he 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



24 
plans to ensure that we can move forward with these innovations 
so that we actually can get a chance to test them, see them 
through, and see if it's worth the public's, you know, further 
investing in trying these programs. 

As we've said before, we have nothing to gain 
personally by having people stay on the street. We do better if 
the Department continues to grow. But we have a concern that 
the public can't afford to see this Department grow, and the 
public can't afford to be victims of crime. 

And we're teachers, and we'd like to see our folks 
succeed on the streets. 

So, as I said, this is a conditional endorsement. We 
don't see that you're going to get — I mean, we see that 
Mr. Gomez is open-minded, but I think some commitments have to 
be made . 

Thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, and maybe Mr. Gomez can 
address your points as well. 

Why don't you address them now. 

MR. GOMEZ: Just very quickly, I believe that the way 
in which to bring the innovation he's talking about is to 
involve the wardens, to involve the teachers, and get some 
principals' involvement. 

I've talked to Andy and others. This Department does 
not react real well to having things jammed down its throat on 

occasion, and on this issue, I believe that the best approach is 

p 

to involve and get a supportive institution, supportive 



4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



25 
teachers, test it in that environment. 

I have at least four institutions out there who've 
indicated their desire to be involved in the innovation. We'll 
find one, and we'll test it. 

But I think the key principal is the involvement of 
those people that are going to do the testing, that they have 
the same kind of commitment that he has or I may have. So, I 
think you see the PERC program being instituted in an 
institution, and its success and failure should be measured upon 
how it handles the issue of recidivism and growth and 
development of that individual inmate. 

And I feel comfortable that we have people out there 
that will make sure that happens. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

Next witness, please. 

MS. CONNER: I want to thank Senator Roberti and the 
Members of the Senate Rules Committee for allowing me the 
privilege of testifying in support of the confirmation of Mr. 
James Gomez for the position of Director of the Department of 
Corrections . 

I am Johnnie Mae Conner. I'm a retired state 
employee. My entire professional career was spent in both the 
Department of Corrections, the Department of the Youth 
Authority, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, and the 
Youthful Offender Parole Board -- a total of 30 years. 

I started my career working in the Youth Authority as 
a supervisor in the institution, parole agent, and a consultant 



26 

in Community Corrections. That was 21 years. Then I 

transferred to the Department of Corrections in Parole as 

administrative assistant to a regional parole officer, working 

as administrator of Staff Services. I went from that position 

to work in the Affirmative Action unit in 1978 in Central Office 

with the Department of Corrections. My first assignment was EEO 

investigator. 
8 

After a very short period of time, I became the 
9 

fourth woman to take over the huge job of Women's Program 
10 

Manager for the Department. The Department was experiencing 
11 

problems mainly with male staff in its treatment of females, and 
12 

the Department at that time continued to recruit women to fill 

13 

positions in the institutions. Women at that time had — were 
14 

not always treated equally in the institutional program. 

15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 



24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



However, I am convinced Mr. Gomez is aware of this 
problem and plans to make sure women can and will work in an 

atmosphere where they can be free of problems. He's a sensitive 

I 

man and a concerned man. The Department needs both of these 
qualities in order to move forward in the future. 

I also believe he is committed to being fair to all 
of his workers: females, ethnic minorities, and Caucasian 
workers . 

I then went to work in the newly formed Youth and 
Adult Correctional Agency under Senator Howard Way. He was the 
Secretary of that Agency, as the Civil Rights -- I was the Civil 
Rights Undersecretary. I remained in that position for two 
years. I was then appointed to the Youthful Offender Board. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



27 
Over the past five years, in my retirement, I have 
been active in the Sacramento community. I served on the Grand 
Jury, and I'm presently on the city-wide Affirmative Action Task 
Force for Mayor Ann Rudin. 

I am also presently on the board of the NAACP, which, 
as you might know, is concerned about the civil rights of all 
people. We had occasion, the President of the local branch of 
the NAACP, to talk with Mr. Gomez several months ago because, in 
Ithe normal course of things, we receive complaints from 
jsometimes inmates, sometimes the wives of inmates, and sometimes 
from employees within the Department. We went to Mr. Gomez and 
advised him of some of the concerns that we had. He assured us 

I 

that he was aware of some of these problems, and that he has a 
plan of action, and plans in the future to change some of the 
things in the Department. 

Because of my very long experience in the field of 
Corrections, and my present concerns for the fact that we have 
over 100,000 inmates locked up, 60 percent non-White, I'm in 
support of a Director who fully understands his role, has the 
interest and energy to carry out the mandates of his role, and I 
believe you will be happy with the results if Mr. Gomez is 
confirmed. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MS. MARTINEZ: Senator Roberti, Members of the Senate 
Rules Committee, I want to thank you for allowing me the 
opportunity to address you today regarding the confirmation of 



28 

1 

James Gomez as Director of the California Department of 

2 

Corrections . 

My name is Norma Martinez, and I'm here today 

4 

representing the Chicano Correctional Workers Association, the 
5 

State Executive Board and membership, representing over 2,000 
6 

members . 
7 

I am currently the Chapter President for the Los 
8 

Angeles Parole Chapter, founded three years ago. I'm a parole 
9 

agent. And the reason that the Chapter was formed approximately 
10 

"three years ago was to address disparate treatment of Hispanic 



11 
12 
13 
14 

15 

|i 

16 

17 
18 



19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



parole agent staff in Region Three of the Parole and Community 
Services Division. 

Upon our inception as a Chapter of CCWA, we called on 
the former Department Director to work out problems which we 
felt disparately affected Hispanics, and most especially 
Latinas in Region Three. Although meetings were held and 
dialogue went on, it never really went beyond that. 

Since we've been meeting — since we met with 
Mr. Gomez and since his administration, we have been extremely 
satisfied with positive changes which have taken place in the 
past year in the recruitment, hiring, and promotions of Latinos. 
We have found Mr. Gomez and his administrative staff to be 
honest, sensitive, and fair in hearing our concerns, and has 
taken action to begin to remedy past disparate treatment of 
Hispanics in Region Three and throughout the Department of 
Corrections . 

As a Latina representing other Latinas in the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



29 
Department of Corrections, the progress we are seeing by the 
recent appointment of qualified Latinas to management level 
positions is a clear indication that Mr. Gomez is committed to 
ending past practices. 

Although much still has to be accomplished, we look 
forward to continue working for and with Mr. Gomez. 

Based on the information presented here today, and on 
behalf of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association, we 
strongly support the confirmation of James Gomez to Director of 
the Department of Corrections. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

MS. MARTINEZ: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Next witness. 

MR. BERMUDEZ: Good afternoon, Senator Roberti and 
Members of the Senate Rules Committee. I'd like to thank you 
for giving me the opportunity to address you today regarding the 
confirmation of Mr. James Gomez. 

I'm here today -- my name is Rudy Bermudez, and I'm 

representing the Los Angeles Chapter of the Chicano Correctional 

Workers Association. The Los Angeles Chapter is the largest 

parole agent chapter of the Chicano Correctional Workers 

jAssociation. Our representation, our membership, is comprised 

i 

of parole agents from both Region Three and Region Four, rank 

and file, and management. 

1 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I don't think you gave us your 

name . 

MR. BERMUDEZ: My name is Rudy Bermudez. 



30 
1 | 

I am also a parole agent and Secretary of the Los 



2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



Angeles Chapter. As my colleague, Norma Martinez, has stated, 
the Los Angeles Chapter was started — was founded to address 
alleged discrimination against Latinos in the Department of 
Corrections. The patterns and practices that existed in Region 
Three discriminately and disparately treated Latinos, depriving 
them of employment and promotional benefits. The Chapter 
believed that the practices resulted in Latinos being under- 
represented in both management and rank and file positions 
throughout Region Three. 

An example, qualified Latinas were consistently 
rejected on promotion to Parole Agent III, while lesser 
qualified non-Latinas were promoted in their place. 

Region Three serves Los Angeles County. As many of 
you know, Los Angeles County's population is Latino and growing, 
at approximately 40 percent. 

A Latina had never been promoted to a position of 
Parole Agent III or above in Region Three's history. Morale was 
very poor. The former administration was nonresponsive, not 
sympathetic, to the issues of the employees, and dialogue had 
ceased. Employees at the time had created a Legal Action Fund 
to remedy matters. 

Mr. Gomez stepped in, and his administration has been 
very supportive to all -- to all employees. They have made 
inroads into eliminating alleged employment discrimination and 
creating a positive work environment for all -- all employees. 
Mr. Gomez has instituted a year-around recruitment to increase 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



31 
the number of qualified candidates entering into Region Three 
and other regions throughout the Department of Corrections. 
He ' s targeted protected groups to ensure that those that are 
below parity make parity. He has developed an Hispanic Advisory 
Committee to create dialogue and positive change which would 
promote a positive work environment for all employees and 
professionalize the Department even greater. And they have made 
positive administrative assignment changes in Region Three, and 
now we have fair and impartial interviews for hire and 
promotion. And I'm proud to say that a Latina has been promoted 
to the position of PA III. 

On behalf of the Los Angeles Chapter, I urge you, 
Senate Rules Committee, to confirm Mr. Gomez to Director of the 
Department of Corrections, to continue the positive growth and 
happenings in our Department. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Bermudez . 

Any questions? Thank you. 

If the remaining witnesses could state who they 
represent and sort of not replicate what others have said, we'd 
appreciate it. 

MS. GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my 
name is Chris Gonzales. I'm the Sacramento-Folsom Chapter 
President of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association, and 
an officer at Folsom State Prison. 

I'm here today to share with you my personal thoughts 
and wishes of my membership. Unfortunately, during confirmation 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



32 
hearings, most people tend to focus on the negative aspects of 
working conditions or personal experiences. You've heard 
Ms. Chacon, a CCPOA Chapter President from Patton Hospital, 
geographically detail her personal experience of sexual 
harassment. She spoke of her meetings with Mr. Gomez over this 
problem. 

Did Ms. Chacon speak of his obvious open door policy? 
Did she explain why he didn't send or direct a Deputy Director 
to handle her problem? 

Mr. Gomez personally made the phone calls to the 
persons involved and make it clear that the harassment stop 
immediately. He took action promptly, and if the persons 
involved continue the harassment, I would hate to be in their 
shoes . 

You will hear from a Folsom correctional officer 
speak of state waste, ineffective administrators, his person 
opinions. Will he speak of Folsom 's recycling program? Will he 
inform this Committee of the over $200,000 in combined savings 
and earnings? Will he speak of recent disciplinary actions on 
administrators found negligent in duty? 

We all heard Mr. Gomez open his remarks and 
responses. He acknowledged problems within the Department of 
Corrections. He readily accepts the challenges facing him. 

Never have we had a Director so open, direct, honest, 
;and proactive. Recently, the Sacramento-Folsom Chapter of CCWA 
honored Mr. Gomez at his — at its first honoring for the newly- 
founded CCWA Scholarship Fund. During his acceptance speech, he 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 



19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



33 
stated, "Our future is in our children." Mr. Gomez not only 
realizes the problems facing us today, but he also understands 
the need for educating our children of the future. 

He seeks solutions in dealing with the Department's 
problems of sexual harassment, and supports the forming of 
scholarship funds. 

We have heard negative comments, false allegations, 
witness support and objections. 

I am here today as the Sacramento-Folsom Chapter 
President of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association to 
inform you, the Committee Members, that CCWA stands united and 
firm in our support for Mr. Gomez. We hereby request that the 
Senate Committee confirm Mr. Gomez as the next Director of the 
^Department of Corrections. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any questions? 

Thank you very much. 

We're going to break for ten minutes. I'll take the 
remaining people in order when we return. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Senate Rules Committee will 
come to order. 

We will take the supporters, then we will take the 

concerned people. I think this would be the proper way to do 

I 

it. And then we will take the opposition, and then we will hear 
rebuttal and closure from Mr. Gomez. 
Mr. Ceballos. 



2 



34 
MR. CEBALLOS: Yes. 
Senator Roberti and Members of the Senate Rules 



3 

Committee, my name is Robert Ceballos. I am the Northern 
4 

.California Vice President for the Mexican-American Correctional 

5 

Association. I'm appearing before the Committee for our 
6 

National President, Fred Martel. 

7 

I want to thank you for allowing me to appear and 
8 

present our testimony in support of James H. Gomez as the 



9 
,0 

11 

12 

13 ; 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
,9 

20 

i 
21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Director of the California Department of Corrections. 

I believe that you have a letter from Mr. Martel, 
dated March 21st, 1992, to voice our support. 

The Mexican-American Correctional Association is a 
professional organization that's been in existence for over 20 
years. It is made up of professionals in different walks and 
different fields of life, both from Department of Corrections, 
Department of the Youth Authority, city, county, and state law 
enforcement officers, as well as other employees. Our 
membership also includes teachers, housewives, students, private 
business owners, employees out of the private sector, and 
lawyers, all working towards the common goal toward preventing 
delinquency, drug abuse, gang violence, and promoting education. 

We recruit and prepare people for entering into the 
field of Corrections and law enforcement field, and we continue 
to work within the communities that we live in. 

Speaking or Mr. Gomez, he is a proven administrator 
with a well-rounded experience. He has experience in both 
county and state agencies. As Director, Mr. Gomez has 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



35 

maintained an open line of communication and an open door policy 
with the employee groups. He has worked closely with the 
Hispanic Law Enforcement Task Force, of which MACA is a part of. 
Mr. Gomez has worked toward ensuring a balanced workforce. He 
is aware of addresses affirmative action needs. 

We, as Hispanics, feel that we have gained in 
administrative positions during his tenure. We have enjoyed and 
worked — a good working relationship with Mr. Gomez, and expect 
to do so in the future. 

Most importantly, Mr. Gomez is a good administrator. 
He comes with varied experiences which, in our times of the 
budget problems that we face throughout the state, is very 
valuable and necessary. 

In order to oversee the operations of an agency that 
supplies a service to and ensures the safety of inmates, staff 
;and the public, one needs to address — one needs to possess the 
qualities that I have mentioned. Governor Wilson saw that 
Mr. Gomez possessed these qualities and requested that he return 
to state service as the Director of the Department. 

The question was raised earlier whether — maybe the 
question was about his commitment. The fact that Mr. Gomez took 
a $30,000 a year pay cut, I think, answers that question. He's 
surely not in it for the money. I think he has shown that he is 
|j — shown his commitment to supplying the direction for the 
Department. 

I just want, in closing, I want to restate MACA ' s 

I 

vote of confidence and support to Mr. Gomez's confirmation as 



36 
1 

Director of the California Department of Corrections. 

Mr. Roberti, Members of the panel and Committee, I 
3 

thank you. 
4 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 
5 

Any questions? Hearing none, thanks again. 



6 

7 
8 

9 

ij 
10 

12 ! 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 i 

23 

! 

24 

i 

25 
26 
27 
28 



MR. MEOLA: I want to thank you, Senators, Mr. 
Chairman, for allowing me this time. 

My name is Giacomo Anthony Meola. I am the State 
Vice President of the California Correctional Peace Officers 
Association, representing about 15,000 line staff which 
comprises about one-half of the total staff within the 
Department of Corrections within the prison system. We are the 
exclusive representatives of these individual peace offices that 
work within our system. 

We're here to support Mr. Gomez on his confirmation 
for the Director of Corrections. Although we were presented 
last year with the highest budget deficit in state history, 
Mr. Gomez, through out negotiations process, was fair and honest 
and impartial throughout the process, and the only unit to come 
up with a contract in the State of California. 

Mr. Gomez, we meet on a regular basis. One of the 
key ingredients to him is his respect for his subordinate staff, 
and to deal with individuals with most of the majority being 
satisfied. 

He did something that was unprecedented in 
Corrections, visiting all 21 institutions for all regions, 
camps; talking to staff on all watches — third watch, second 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



37 

watch, first watch — through all communications, through 

supervisors, upper management, middle management, and rank and 

file staff. 

Positive and negative comments were able to be 
1 
addressed at the Director's level because of this. 

And last, because I'd like to make this brief, the 

position of Director, we're talking about — we are dependent, 

public safety is dependent, and our safety and our lives working 

inside the institutions are dependent on his decisions. And 

Jjbeing on the edge of staffing as we are now, with the cuts we 

took in 1988, 1990, and '91, we feel very comfortable in 

jMr. James H. Gomez being made Director of Corrections. 

Thank you. 
i 1 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Meola. 

Any questions? 

Next is Ms. Donna McKinney. 

MS. McKINNEY: Thank you, Senator Robert i. I'll take 
out my notes so I can get over my nervousness, I hope. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Don ' t be nervous . 

MS. McKINNEY: My name is Donna McKinney, and I'm the 
President of Women in Criminal Justice. It is the only women's 
advocacy group for our profession. We have — we're about 
200-300 members strong, and we are -- our goals are 
professionalism and career development. We're actively involved 
in networking, and training, and advocacy for women in hearing 
goals . 

It's really rny pleasure to be here today. We've 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



38 
'previously submitted a letter of support for Mr. Gomez and 
offered to testify, and it is my pleasure to be here today to do 
just that. 

We think Mr. Gomez is the right person for this job 
at the right time. The main reason we think so is that he 
recognizes the problem. We have a problem in the Department of 
Corrections in the way we treat people, the way staff treats 
staff. And Mr. Gomez has addressed this in every possible form, 
jl've heard him personally myself at least five — on five 
'different occasions talking about it, and I don't see him 
everyday. So, everytime I have seen him, he has been talking 
about the same theme. 

He's developing a new management training program, 
and that will be the primary focus about how people work with 
people, talk to people, treat people, which -- the bottom line 
of sexual harassment or gender harassment is the same as racial 
harassment, or any other kind of harassment. It's not treating 
people fairly; treating people differently; treating people 
Idisrepect fully. And Mr. Gomez sees that problem, sees that 
issue, has concentrated on it. I think it's the primary issue. 
It's the main thing that I've heard him talk about over and over 
again. 

There's really two fronts to work on the issue of 
sexual harassment, in my mind. One is in hiring more women. I 
think that the problems will get better as the numbers increase. 
We're not in a hiring mode, as you've noticed, but even with 
that, we have some -- Mr. Gomez has instituted some specific 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 



23 



39 
written goals to improve the promotional levels and the hiring 
levels of women. And I think ultimately that is -- that is 
going to help the culture a lot. 

He has very clearly defined that we do need to make a 
cultural change. We need to behave differently. And he's 
working toward that end on every front that I've seen, training 
and talking to people. He's done an ethics tape that's being 
shown on every street corner that we all know by heart. 

I just can't imagine anyone with a stronger verbal 
commitment than Mr. Gomez has had in this area, and I think it 
really is the critical issue for our Department at this time. 

I think I managed to get all the way through this 
without looking. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. Very good testimony. 

You didn't even refer to your notes. 

I 

Thank you, Ms. McKinney. 

MS. McKINNEY: And we certainly hope that you will 
confirm Mr. Gomez as the Director of the Department of 
Corrections. We need him. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. McKinney. 

Any questions? Hearing none, thanks again. 

Now we have two who indicated concern — oh, excuse 
me, Suzie Cohen, yes. 



24 

MS. COHEN: I know, I'm short. 
25 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, no, no. Short, but you make 
26 

your presence known. Very good. 
27 

MS. COHEN: Just not to take much of your time, let 

28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



j . 40 

me cut right to the chase. 

The Board of Directors of the California Probation, 
Parole and Correctional Association have reviewed Mr. Gomez's 
professional qualifications, his personal qualifications. 
Without any reservation, they support his confirmation. 

We've all worked with Jim Gomez for the better part 
of ten years, and have no concerns at all about his not being 
'the proper person for the job. He brings all of the caring that 
;Ms . McKinney described, and all of the professionalism that all 
iof you are aware of, and will serve the State of California and 
ithe Department of Corrections very well. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Cohen. 

I see no questions. 

Now we will go to the concerns, Ms. Cynthia De Mars. 

MS. DE MARS: I'd like to thank the panel for 
allowing me to speak today. I have some real big concerns. 

I'm a correctional officer at Folsom Prison. I've 
been with the Department, it'll be five years in January. 

I -- I was a victim of sexual harassment by a 
;!supervisor . It lasted three weeks from the supervisor, but it 
went on a year and a half second/third hand harassment. The 
second and third hand harassers were never dealt with, and still 
to this point, they're back in the background, and anytime that 

they get a little — a little chance to throw a dagger at me, 

'i 
they do . 

I've reported it on many occasions, and I'm 

considered a troublemaker. And I'm not a troublemaker. I — 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



41 
:|there ' s trouble there, and it needs to be taken care of. 

I feel that I have a right to work, and I have a 
right to work in an environment that doesn't have these 
stressers. It's pretty bad when the inmates aren't the 
stressers; it's your supervisors and it's the line staff in the 
management positions. They're second and third hand — you 
know, they've done this to other people before. 

The Department needs to have a special tracking to 
where they can keep tabs on these people. 

Mr. Gomez did not create this problem. This 
problem's been gong on for 20 years. I just have a concern that 
I don't want to wait 10 years for it to be fixed. I don't even 
want to wait five years for it to be fixed. 

We, as decent human beings, which there are quite a 
few in the Department of Corrections, can fix this problem. We 

can help him. We can assist him. And it's not a telling. 

I 

It's -- we need to network, because the only way that 
we're going to get rid of — if they want to call theirselves 
[sic] "good old boys" of Folsom Prison, but I've nicknamed them 
"the pack of dogs", because that's exactly how they are. And 
you know, maybe in ten years the pack of dogs will have retired 
or gone or, or promoted — God forbid if they happen to promote 
and go into other institutions, and, you know, bring their 
sickness elsewhere. 

But there's wanna-be packs of dogs, too. There's 
their little predecessors that will take a person who's been 
harassed to the point to where you're absolutely sick to get out 



1 

2 

•\ 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



42 
of your car to report to work. And they get their — they get 
their little underdogs to do their dirty work as far as coming 
into your work area and blatantly saying degrading remarks to 
you, or standing outside underneath the window of the warden's 
office on a daily basis. I had to go through that over a 
three-month period, to where I was -- was talked to filthy, 
where the sergeant cast aspersions on me constantly. And they 
i weren't very flattering. Or to draw keys from a control booth 
and be told through the glass, "Here's your keys, you slut." 

No. This -- these are my concerns. These are very 
real issues, and all I had to do was — "If you don't like it, 
get out of here. We don't want you anyway. You're a 
troublemaker. Transfer someplace else." 

I have not transferred anywhere else and I have not 
quit because believe that I have a right to be there. I have a 

I! 

right to work there, and I have a right to work there in an 
environment that's not hostile. 

But this does happen. And these are all supervisors 

|l 

that are going — these are our sergeants that are going to be 
our lieutenants, who are going to be our captains, that are 
going to be our program administrators. It's not necessarily 
the line staff that's doing this. It's people that are in 
supervisor positions, and they use their positions as a way to 
blackmail for sexual favors from female staff, and from male 
staff, from medical staff. It's happening. I see it at Folsom, 
and it has to be happening elsewhere. 

But the only thing, we need a Director that's going 



1 I 



43 
to hit this head-on and deal with it. I don't think that I 



2 j 

would want the job that he's about ready to embark upon, but at 



3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



least he's shown some concerns in these areas. 

These areas -- you know, this is costing the 
Department of Corrections and the State of California lots of 
money, and yet they cover it up. They pretend like it doesn't 
exist, and it does exist, because not only am I a victim out 
there, there's several victims that are afraid to come forward. 
"No, Officer De Mars, don't tell, because if you do, you're 
never going to promote. You're never going to get off the first 
watch. " 

Well, if you have to sacrifice your morals and your 
principles to promote, or to get off a particular watch, or to 
get a certain post, that's not right. That's not — that's not 
— when I filed that application for the State of California 
to work for the Department of Corrections, that wasn't something 
that female officers had to do, perform sexual favors as a way 
to get that paycheck, or as a way to even have a job. 

And those -- those are my concerns. There's — the 
people that are repeat offenders are people that have — we need 
to network them. When their name is brought up in an 
allegation, we need to keep records on them outside the 
institution because things are missing out of personnel files, 
i "Oh, he's never had any problems before." "Well, why did he 
lose his stripes?" 

These people are being demoted and then re-promoted. 
No more. It can't happen, you know. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



44 

We need your help in helping him do what he needs to 
do, and that's a complete shaking up of the Department of 
Corrections, and telling them no, it can't happen. 

It destroys you mentally, physically, and 
professionally, and it's not fair. 

So, you know, that's my concerns right there, is that 
if he's going to take this job, he needs to accept all the 
problems and get them taken care of as soon as possible, 
because it's -- inadvertently, it's going to make him look bad, 
because it escalates. And all these people that have their 
little juice cards and say, "Well, you know, he's my home-boy. 

I'll go to him and I won't have any problems." They need to 

ii 

burn the juice cards, and he needs to look at everything in its 

I 

own merit and deal with it. Deal with it harshly, because until 

it's dealt with harshly, it's not going to come to an end. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. De Mars. 

You said secondary harassment. What did you mean by 

I 
that? 

MS. DE MARS: Well, in my particular case, I had a 
sergeant that -- I was transferred from a post that I had just 
gotten two days and brought out to a post to work for him. And 
it was a remote post to where it was just myself and the 
supervisor. 

And he had explained to me that I was a retirement 
gift. He was going to be retiring in nine months, and that if I 
performed certain sexual acts, that I would get off first watch; 
I would have weekends off, and it would be easier for me to 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



45 
Ipromote . 

And I was just beside myself, because I says, "Well, 
you know, I don't think that I want to be out here." This is 
just -- this isn't what I wanted. I thought that I was brought 
out to that position because my grooming standards were so — I 
was working in the entrance gate at the old — at Old Folsom, 
and when I was transferred there, they said it was because of my 
grooming standards and how I conducted myself at work. 

Then when I went out there, he dropped the bomb. And 
|he had removed ammunition from my state revolver, because I had 
ito hand my revolver off to use the staff restroom. He removed 
the bullets and told me that if — "This would be real easy to 
set you up." And he said, "You ought to really reconsider." 

If you're losing your bullets from your revolver, you 
can be dismissed from your job, you know. You're responsible 
for the ammunition in your gun. 

And then he justified it, and the Department at 
Folsom justified it by saying that it was a training practice to 
remove the bullets from the — from the firearm while I was 
using the restroom. 

I also had an incident to where he had a peep hole in 
the staff restroom where he took pictures of me while I used the 
staff restroom, and he told me that the pictures would end up in 
an inmate's house. And that's another — if pictures of a 
female staff, especially with their pants down, ends up in the 
inmate's cell, it's -- you're not going to have a job. So, you 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



46 
know, he was playing -- he was playing hardball. 

l! 

And I had gone to a lieutenant. He said, "Well, I'll 
take care of it," and he didn't. And several sergeants knew, 
and finally I found a sergeant that I had trained to be a watch 
sergeant, and he had confronted me. He said, "Officer De Mars, 
what's wrong with you? You sure changed and lost a lot of 
weight. " 

Keep in mind, I lost 30 pounds over this three-week 
period, as well as I was losing hair, losing sleep. 

And he had said to me, "What's going on?" And I told 
him. He was a Black male sergeant, and I said to him, I says, 
"You know, this is what's happening, but I don't want you to get 
in trouble. " 

And he said, "You know, Officer De Mars, it comes to 
a time where a person has to put their rank over what's right 
'and what's wrong." He said, "This is wrong." And he went and 
he told. 

And I filed a report, and it went up -- I went 
through the chain of command, and I was told by the captain that 

he couldn't talk to me because I didn't belong. You know, "You 

i 

don't belong here. You're an outsider." Meaning that I had — 

I had come from another institution and transferred into Folsom. 

And the harasser had been with the Department 30-some odd years, 

and so he was a home-boy, and I was an outsider. 

The female lieutenant also told me that that's just 

-- you know, you have to do what you have to do to survive, and 

you know, sometimes making waves isn't the right thing to do. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 



19 

20 
21 

22 

23 | 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



47 
But it got to a point to where if — I had no intentions on 
being passed around the institution as a correctional fluff, 
that they call the females that happen to fall into this. And I 
felt that it was criminal, and it was wrong, and if I did tell, 
that they were going to put a stop to it, but that wasn't the 
case. 

You know, they covered it up. They made excuses, and 
I had to go get an attorney outside to represent me. I even 
contacted the union, and I was told that it was a conflict of 
interest, and I had to take care of it myself. 

These are the issues that need to be taken care of. 
And the perpetrator of the harassment, he was provided counsel. 
He was provided lots of things that me, as a victim — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: By whom? 

MS. DE MARS: — I wasn't provided. 

By the State of California. They paid legal 
representation for him, and I had to go find counsel, private 
counsel to represent me. 

These are the problems. This is the problem. It's a 
big problem. 

And people -- they're reluctant to come forward, but 
I had to come forward 'cause it got to be where it was either I 
was going to quit, or I was going to fight. And I am not a 
quitter, and the fight hasn't been easy, and the fight's not 
over 'cause, you know, my — the supervisor that was harassing 
me, he — they let him retire where he got to burn all of his 
sick leave and holiday, and he retired exactly like he said he 



2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



48 
was going to in eight months . 

And I don't really believe that it changed anything. 
And now I'm still out there, and there's still a little bit of 
nastiness still going on, but they also know that I'm not going 
to give up. 

And I came here today to not blame him for the 
problems, but plead to him that if he is confirmed, he needs to 
know that this is a serious issue, and it destroys people. And, 
jyou know, he's my last hope, if he's confirmed. And whoever, if 
he is not, and the next Director comes along, I'm going to, you 
know, appeal to him to help us for this. It's a serious 
problem. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Thank you very much, Ms. De Mars. 
We appreciate your testimony very, very much. 

Has anybody a question? 

SENATOR MELLO: Ask Mr. Gomez if he would like to 



respond. 



respond. 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, maybe Mr. Gomez would like to 



MR. GOMEZ: Her case came to my attention just 
yesterday, and I talked to her -- I met her for the first time 
today in the audience, and I've asked her to come in and meet 
with me. 

I believe it occurred in 1990? 

MS. DE MARS: Correct. 

MR. GOMEZ: And I was in Santa Clara County during 
1990, but the behavior she talked about is unacceptable 



49 



I 

ilbehavior. The way in which things are handled, if that's the 
2 

way it was handled, is unacceptable. 

I've told her I will get involved. I'll listen to 
4 

her individually. I'll listen to the people that she talked to, 
5 

the people that she talked about, and I'll personally get 



6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



involved in the case. 

I think that it's just unacceptable behavior by 
anybody in state government, private government, local 
government, private industry, or anywhere else. And I agree 
with her that we need to change that. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR MELLO: I know that he was going to make his 
remarks at the end, but I thought it would be appropriate if he 
responded, because these are very serious charges and 
allegations . 

I'm glad to hear that you're on top of them. 

MR. GOMEZ: Some of the allegations, I think there 
was a court settlement on, from what I've been told. As I said, 
I have not got into the case itself. 

But in the minor briefing that I have been provided, 
it's clear that she's been harassed from the information I've 
been given. 

SENATOR MELLO: As he said, we went through the 
hearing for several weeks for the former warden, Mr. Campoy, who 
was out there for, I guess, 34 years. And they had a lot of 
testimony showing the same kind of incidents going on and on. 

And it just seems like, they're still existing, 



50 

1 ; ! 

according to your testimony here today. And you mentioned that 
one of the supervisors, the perpetrator, has since retired. 

Are there others that are still working and active 

4 

there that have -- 

5 

MS. DE MARS: They have current — you know, they're 

6 

in a position right now that they're just waiting to be picked 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



up as lieutenants. And that's the whole part that's just so 
sickening, that they're going to be our boss's boss. And it's 
scary, you know. 

SENATOR MELLO: You can give those names to Mr. Gomez 
when you are going to get together. 

The testimony he has made here, he says he cannot 
tolerate it; it's going to stop and end, and he's going to make 
jsure that it disappears completely. And that's the way he's 
testified here before the Rules Committee, and I take him for 

his word. 

ii 

MR. GOMEZ: We've got a lot of attitudes to change. 

It's a real — you know, I made the comment, and she talked to 

me in the audience about five to ten years when I was up here 

previously. 
I 

I believe it's going to take a while; I really do. 

But I think you start Day One, and you make it a priority, and 

you push, and you let everybody in the whole place know that 

that it's important. You let everybody in the whole place know 

that that — that when we find it, we're going to eradicate it, 

and we're going to deal with the people that are the cause. 

And I can only guarantee you that I will do that. It 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



51 
will take time. It can't turn overnight, because you can't 
change those attitudes, but you can change behaviors. You can't 
change attitudes, but you can change behaviors in how people 
treat people when they're getting paid eight hours with the 
state . 

SENATOR MELLO: I'd like to find out, when these 
allegations are brought before you, how do you proceed in a 

formal way? Is the district attorney involved in the local 

I 

area? Do you have a prosecutor on your staff? 

MR. GOMEZ: On issues of affirmative action and equal 
employment, they are brought first to the institution, and they 
are investigated by an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor on 
an informal basis. 

If the person believes it's a formal, it typically 
will go to Central Office. And Central Office will work with 
the institution and assign an investigator, in many instances, 
from a different institution to look — to look at these issues. 

We have a new head of Affirmative Action in the 
Department. She's equally committed, as I am, to dealing with 
ithis issue. 

But it's not the investigators that are going to make 
the difference. It's going to be the supervisors that make the 
difference. Each individual case can get handled on an 
individual case basis, but the devastation that she's felt, and 
others like her feel, you can't repay. 

I believe we have to go back to the respect of 
people, to the employee and employer, the supervisors, the 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



52 
sergeants and lieutenants, supervising cooks, whatever, the 
educators, whatever the area may be, and deal at that level. 

The investigation, obviously, has to be done, but the 
pattern and the acceptance in the environment is what has to 
change. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Senator Petris. 

I 

SENATOR PETRIS: It looks like we're hearing the same 
old stories about Folsom that we heard years ago. We had, as 
you probably know, we had extensive hearings and complaints 
coming out of Folsom that were just totally unacceptable, as you 
put it. 

Is there any kind of training or prevention program 
in place? 

MR. GOMEZ: There's sexual harassment training, but I 
-- I'm not comfortable that the sexual harassment training that 
we provide, in and of itself, is enough. I really think we have 
to get back to a more basic issue. 

Everybody knows what sexual harassment is . There ' s 

I 

— the lines that she drove -- I mean, there's over familiarity. 
That's not what she's talking about here. She's talking about 
: gross behavior by men treating women as a piece of meat. 

That's not -- that's — that's — you don't need any 

training for that. I mean, I think the issue is so fundamental 

li 

in terms of us stepping back from it and getting back with 
staff, and in our whole training program at the Academy, and 
;with how we treat individual staff members, that I think the 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



53 
sexual harassment training is critical, but it is not the key. 
It's not the component. 

I also want to say, I think Folsom has improved, but 
I think Folsom' s got some problems, and they have to be dealt 
with. 

To the fact that people are willing to come forward 
and talk is — I mean, I need to hear from individuals on this 
— on this type of thing. The warden needs to hear from 
individuals on this kind of thing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's kind of difficult, though. 

MR. GOMEZ: Oh, it's — it's — well, that's because 
the environment is there. 

There are 29,000 employees in this Department, and 
the majority of them are good, fine employees. There is a 
pocket. There's a pocket at many different locations that are 
not. We have to deal with that. 

We can ' t have employees acquiesce to other employee ' s 
behavior, say, "It's okay; it's not affecting me." 

I -- my other concern in this hearing is, in addition 
to her individual case, is I also don't want to paint the entire 
Department of Corrections with a brush of 29,000 employees. 
This is an issue. It's a very serious issue, but there are an 
awful lot of fine employees who want to make the same kind of 
change I'm talking about. I'm not by myself. I've got — I've 
got 10,000 people that want to pick up this — this same thought 
process that I have, that want to move on this issue. 

And I think you'll see that kind of improvement. 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



54 

SENATOR PETRIS: What kind of tools do you have that 
you can use? 

MR. GOMEZ: Well, I think you start — I've met with 
every manager at every institution and talked about issues of 
sexual harassment, issues of respect for people. I've done it 
at 21 out of 23 institutions. 

Every forum I'm in as the Director, I bring it up. 
I've had hour-and-a-half discussions. I've met with a variety 
of different groups. 

I have asked for the Adverse Action Task Force -- we 



15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



dealing with respect for people. And I don't have as well-laid 
out a strategy as I'd like to have, Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me ask you this. If I were one 
of the persons she talked about, what is it that you can do that 
should frighten me about my job? 

MR. GOMEZ: Terminate you, demote you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, what does that take for 
termination? 

MR. GOMEZ: It takes — it typically takes 
corroboration. Takes one other person -- one other person that 
was -- that was aware of it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you terminate someone without 
going through a hearing? 



have an Adverse Action Task Force in the Department — to give 
12 ij 

some recommendations. I've asked for my head of Affirmative 

13 

Action to give some recommendations. 

14 

But I think it's going to be a global issue of 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



55 

MR. GOMEZ: No. But no, I can terminate them, then 
they have rights to what's called a Skelly hearing, and then a 
hearing in front of the State Personnel Board, and then they 
have a right to go to court after that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But you can take the initial action 
and terminate if you are satisfied from your investigation — 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, and in fact — 

SENATOR PETRIS: — and felt it was well justified? 

MR. GOMEZ: — just in the last three weeks, I can 

I 
think of two terminations and one demotion from a captain to a 

CO. that I've taken in the last three weeks. 

SENATOR PETRIS: On that issue? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, not just at that prison. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I imagine that the word spreads. 

MR. GOMEZ: Well, I hope it does. I hope it does. I 
hope the message is clear. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It should have some kind of an 
impact on the others. 

Well, I hope you'll keep at it . It's really 
disgraceful, and I'm sure it's only a handful compared to the 
! total number you're talking about, but it only takes one to make 
your life miserable. 

MR. GOMEZ: Right. People are destroyed. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's right. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Carmen Rojas. 

MS. ROJAS: I'd like to thank the Committee. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



56 

1 
' ! 

I'm Carmen Rojas. I'm also an officer at Folsom 
Prison. 

I have some concerns. First of all, I was listening 
to you speak, and you're saying you have the authority to 
terminate people for this type of action. 

MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. 

MS. ROJAS: Okay. Now, at what point does that take 
|j — I mean, how does that news get to you? 

MR. GOMEZ: If an investigation is performed, and the 
investigation finds sexual harassment, at that point in time 
they make a recommendation to the warden of that institution. 
The warden makes a recommendation of a penalty and works with 
the head of Affirmative Action. It comes up to Central Office. 
If the penalty is above 10 percent, I personally review it. If 
it's below 10 percent, I typically do not. 

So, it depends upon what the recommendation is. 

j] 

The Assistant Director of Affirmative Action, the 

Deputy Director of Institutions, review comparable cases to find 

comparable penalties — a comparable penalty in terms of how 

people have been treated in the past, and what they believe with 

our legal staff we can justify through the State Personnel Board 

and through the court system. 

So, depending upon the behavior itself, and the 

actual verification of that behavior, it can be as strong as a 

demotion, as strong as a firing, or as weak as a letter of 

reprimand or a verbal counseling, depending on the activity 

itself. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 I 

20 
21 

22 |i 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



57 

MS. ROJAS: How often do you think this information 
gets to your office? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : I think I ' d better have you ask 
these questions through the Chair. 

MS. ROJAS: Okay. 

I was curious how often he believed that this 
information gets passed on to him. 

I know from experience that a lot of times it stops 
at the institution. You go through the chain of command; it 
igoes no further. 

We have -- we haven't been schooled on where to go. 
I mean, there's no organization for us to turn to. There's no 
one — no one there. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: That is a good question. 

Say an officer at Folsom is sexually harassed. What 
is her first recourse? 

MR. GOMEZ: Her first recourse is to file within the 
institution and handle it at the institution level. If they 
feel — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Within Folsom itself? 

MR. GOMEZ: Within Folsom. 

If they feel that they're not going to be treated 
fairly, or it's not an issue that they would want to bring to 
Folsom Prison, they can come directly to Central Office to the 
Affirmative Action Office in Central Office. And we handle all 
significant complaints of sexual harassment out of Central 
Office. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



58 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, is for some reason she 

wouldn't want to file the complaint in Folsom, maybe because she 

person with whom she's filing the complaint is in league with 

the harasser, she would have — 

MR. GOMEZ: She would have the ability to come — 
CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: — the ability to come to the 

Central Office. 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, clearly. 

And -- but she's going to have to say who it is. 

She's going to have to have us confront that individual to have 

to do the investigation. 

It's — there are people that will come forward and 

say, "I want to give the information, but I won't go on record, 

i 

and I won't deal with it. I just want to let you know that this 

is happening." That's one level. 

The other level is, "I want to file a formal 
complaint against Jim Gomez on this issue." 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, there's two things you can do. 
The lighter methodology is sort of like a letter of — like a 
notice that this is happening, and that the authorities should 

know that this is happening. 

I 

The more severe is that, this is an outright formal 

complaint. A formal complaint could be issued -- it could be 

written up at Folsom or at the Central Office. 

MR. GOMEZ: Right. Clearly, it has to be written up, 
and it has to be signed by the complainant. 

I mean, I could give you an example, I think, in this 



59 
1 

particular case. My information tells me that one of the cases 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



that she may be talking about, that actually happened. Whether 
it was investigated by Folsom or outside of Folsom, I'm not sure 
of right now, but an investigation was done and action was 
taken. 

There are a lot of people that don't report. There 
are a lot of people that feel uncomfortable reporting at Folsom 
Prison to Central Office. And part of our job is to make sure 
that people are comfortable that that avenue is available to 
them. 

I'm sorry that she didn't know that that avenue was 
available. That's an example of us having to do a better job of 
getting that out to the field in terms of that availability. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Has the Department ever tried using 
an ombudsman from the outside to make periodic visitations, 
check things out, like in the service the I.G.? 

MR. GOMEZ: Not on this issue, no, we've not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are they used on other issues? 

MR. GOMEZ: I'm trying to sit back and think right 
now . 

We have our own Inspector General Office within the 
Department, but it would not handle this issue. It does 
reviews . 

Our Affirmative Action Office is right now the 
vehicle that all of state government use, which is your own 
internal investigative capability. It is not necessarily tied 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



60 

i 

to the institution, and I think that's the key. 

The people that come in and investigate, and come up 
with the finding, don't have to go back and live there, which is 
one of the key components of a Central Office investigation, is 
if I bring a deputy warden from Susanville or from Cal Patria, 
or from CIM, to come and review this and come up with a finding, 
they then go back to that institution. They provide us the 
finding, then we take the action based on that. 

So, in most of the significant sexual harassment 
complaints, they're not done by the institution themselves. 

MS. ROJAS: Some of my concerns were, I believe that 
the Department of Corrections needs to set up a training system 
for victims that have been sexually harassed. Let them know 
where they can go. Help them obtain counseling. 

In my opinion, sexual harassment is -- is rape on a 
different level. These people need counseling. It's hard to 
deal with. 

As Ms. De Mars spoke of, the second hand harassment 
is overwhelming, and what are you going to do? Everytime 
somebody says something that's not kosher to you, are you going 
to run, tell your supervisor? Or are you just going to go on 
and deal with it, go on and do your eight? 

These things also need to be addressed. These people 
need to know that this is not part of their job. They are there 
to do a job, not to go there. They're not dating — they're not 
going there for a dating service. The state does not pay these 
people to solicit for sexual favors, and that's what they do. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



61 

I mean, these are some serious issues that need to be 
addressed. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: If I could stop you there, maybe 
that is a suggestion, that maybe there should be — maybe you 
have this, I don't know — a training, not necessarily for the 
perpetrator, but for the person who is going to come in contact 
with sexual harassment. 

I don't know if I'd recommend that for every state 
agency, but it just seems so pervasive at the Department of 
Corrections. I mean, if a woman — I'm not telling you anything 
I don't think you don't know — if a woman is hired, I think 
she's got to expect that she's going to be hit on. That's 
probably an easy way to put it. 

I mean, it's just — with all the hearings we've 
heard, I mean, it just seems like it's inevitable. I just think 
maybe the women who are hired have to be told this is what may 
happen, and this is what you can do. 

Now, I don't know if you have a -- 

MR. GOMEZ: I think we do some of that, but I think 
her point about providing counseling for victims of sexual 
harassment is a good point. 

We have an employee assistance program. That may not 
be enough. It's an issue I'll go back and take a look at. 

These are devastating events in people's lives, and I 
am more than willing to go back and take a look at the issue of 
some counseling services for victims of sexual harassment. 

And also, our Affirmative Action Office provides 



62 
counseling. A lot of people sometimes just want to talk; they 

want to call and they want to talk, and they want to say, "What 

3 j 

do you think? Give me some advice; give me some counsel." We 

4 

have that available. 

5 

But I think when you get to the more significant 

tissues that she's -- the real dirty sexual harassment stuff, I 

think at that point in time, we have an obligation to look at 

counseling programs, and I'm more than happy to go back and take 

a look at that . 

I don't — and you used a term — I don't believe 
it's pervasive in the Department of Corrections. I believe it's 
there. I don't believe it is representative of all the 
employees in the Department . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: And you may be right. 
Unfortunately for us, when we get -- the time for us to hear 
about it is during hearings, and of course, it may give us a 
view that it may be far more expansive than is the case. 

MR. GOMEZ: The fact that two women have come forward 
from Folsom Prison to this hearing to speak about it means 
there's a problem. You have to be blind not to see that. 

This is not easy for them to come up and do this . 
This is not easy. 

MS. ROJAS: We'll suffer from it. They — they won't 
do anything illegal now, because we've all formally filed 
before. 

The gentleman I filed on no longer works for the 
Department of Corrections only because he did it again after he 



7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

i. 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 il 



3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



63 
was demoted. 

So, we will have to suffer. 

MR. GOMEZ: Can I make a comment on that? I really 
think it's important. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes. 

MR. GOMEZ: I feel for this lady. When she made the 
complaint that she did, in 4 9 days Folsom Prison had that person 
demoted from a lieutenant to a CO. That's a major action in 
our Department; it's a two-level demotion. 

She's right. Six months later, he did a different 
but similar kind of behavior, and he was terminated as a CO. 
Did not learn from the first event. 

She was clear when she filed, but within a very short 
period of time, an investigation was conducted, and action was 
taken on that particular case. A two-level demotion in that 
case was quick and significant action. 

It obviously was not enough. The person didn't 
learn; went back two levels, and within, I think, a six-month 
period was terminated. 

So, I've reviewed the case, and that's an example 
where Folsom Prison, when it became -- when they became aware, 
they moved very rapidly on that particular case. 

MS. ROJAS: But that's only an isolated incident. 

If it were to have been one of the home-boys, as they 
put it, one of the good old boys, that -- it wouldn't have been 
so quick. It would have lingered for a long time. 

I don't believe that most of the women are aware of 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



64 
the avenues that they can take to seek help. I know I wasn't. 
I was just very fortunate that I had some very good supervisors 
that listened to me and felt that what was taking place was not 
moral, and they didn't believe it should be happening. So, they 
helped me. I was very fortunate. 

I had also — I also think that we need to touch 
bases with other harassment, not just sexual. There are people 
out there being harassed everyday because they're Black, because 
they're Hispanic. 

Folsom Prison is very backward. It's basically like 

j 

the Keystone Kops . It's its own clique. And they — they 

definitely need to be looked into. They have an associate 

warden there who gave me a really bad time because I filed; has 

given numerous people bad times: Debbie Garcy, he was involved 

in that. I believe he was involved with De Mars, and other 

harassment cases. 

And I just wonder if maybe Mr. Gomez can do something 
about continually employing these people or promoting them. 
Instead of saying, "Okay, you've been a bad boy; let's put you 
up to the next rank so we don't have to hear from you," kick him 
down a few, you know. Take the air out of them. Say, "Hey, 
look. What you're doing is not right." 

And I think that we need to have a task force to — 
to work on these things, and not just the sexual harassment 
classes. Anybody can listen to, "Okay, now this is sexual 
harassment; this is not, and this is what will happen to you." 
Well, they all know that if they're good to Lieutenant 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



65 
So-and-so, nothing's going to happen to them. And that's the 
way Folsom Prison works at least. I don't know about other 
institutions, but I imagine they're similar. 

You talked about training supervisors, but you can 
train them and train them, but you can't teach an old dog a new 
trick. If they don't want to learn, they're not going to learn. 
These people, a lot of them have very low morals. They don't 
believe what they're doing is wrong. 

So, I ' m in hopes that maybe we can get together and 
put a stop to this. I think it's — it's amazing that it goes 
on. 

I'd also like to see that these — they have State 
Personnel hearings. And this is not -- you know, what goes into 
these hearings is not public knowledge. I'd like to know why? 

MR. GOMEZ: I think the Peace Officer Bill of Rights 
and other employee bills of rights do not allow some of this 
material to be public for both sides. 

MS. RO JAS : Oh, I see, but if it goes to civil court, 
it would be public. 

MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. 

I'm just telling you I think that under the Peace 
Officer Bill of Rights, and under the employees', that that 
information cannot go public until after an action has been 
taken. Once an action has been taken by us or the State 
Personnel Board, at that point in time I think it's public 
information. So, it depends upon the point in time during the 
process . 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



66 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: What particular job do you have 
there and what are your duties? 

MS. ROJAS: My duties? I'm a correctional officer. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What does that mean to a layman? 

MS. ROJAS: To maintain safety and security of the 
institution. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're in uniform? 

MS. ROJAS: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And you're armed? 

MS. ROJAS: Depending on where I work. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where are you armed and where are 
you not? 

MS. ROJAS: We — on gun post, you're armed, meaning 
you're on a gun walk or in a tower or on a transportation 
detail . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you work in teams or pairs? 

MS. ROJAS: When you're in a block, yes, sir. When 
you work with other officers, you work in pairs. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where does this harassment take 
place? 

MS. ROJAS: It can take place anywhere. I was 
assigned to the mail room. It was myself and two other 
officers, male officers, and one — one sergeant. And then 
female — free staff is what we call it. It took place there. 

It can take place walking on a tier. I've been 
walking in my work area. I've had an officer brush by my 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



67 

bottom. And I don't mean, you know, like when you walk in 

public, you expect to bump into somebody. It's more than -- 

than that. I mean, you know, you see somebody bent over or 

something, you don't walk up and put your groin against their 

bottom. I mean, that is a little bit, you know, too much. 
I 

It can happen anywhere. I've been a victim recently. 

I've been grabbed. I've had my arms twisted. I've been elbowed 

in the — in my ribs because I wouldn't comply to his wishes. 

He wanted to have an -- an affair with a discrete married woman. 

Well, you know, I -- I don't think that's acceptable 
in the workplace. I mean, not that I would go for it anyways. 
I love my husband, and I'm very happily married. It's — you 
know, it's ridiculous. 

So, it can happen anywhere. In my -- the past, I've 
been called at home. The lieutenant, he got my phone number out 
of Personnel, which they're not supposed to do, but he did. 
Called me at home; asked for sexual favors. Asked if he could 
come to my home, which caused an upheaval in my home. My 
husband was livid. He said, "What is this person doing calling 
lyou?" And I explained to it — explained to him, you know, and 
he says, "Well, you have to do something." 

Well, anyway, so it can happen on the job. It can 
happen off the job. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How long have you been there? 

MS. ROJAS: At Folsom, for four years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Were you at another one before? 

MS. ROJAS: Yes, I was at Vacaville. 



2 



68 

SENATOR PETRIS: For how long? 
MS. ROJAS: Two years. 



3 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did similar things happen at 
4 

Vacaville? 
5 

MS. ROJAS: I've never been a witness to it. 
6 

SENATOR PETRIS: Nothing to you? 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I 

MS. ROJAS: Nothing to me, no. I've not even see it 

take place. They were a little harder on it. They — it — 

they didn't play the good old boys system as much as Folsom 

Prison does. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How soon did it start after you were 

liassigned to Folsom? 
I 

MS. ROJAS: Urn, probably six months, only because I 

II 
was assigned to a tower by myself for five of those six months. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did any of the other women employees 

;!warn you to be careful, on the lookout, and so forth? 

MS. ROJAS: They just said, you know, just stand up 

n 
I 

if or yourself, you know. Don't be afraid to say no. 

Well, I found out saying no isn't always, you know -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's not the final word? 

MS. ROJAS: Yeah, I mean, 'cause in both instances 
that I've acquired -- or been involved with, no didn't stop at 
no. I mean, I even thought of different ways -- very mean, very 
abrupt ways — to say no, and they still didn't click on. You 
l!know, they just say, "Oh, I'm going to try again. I've got to 
try again. " 

I don't know if it was their ego or what. It can — 



69 
1 

it happens in different form; it happens in different places. 
2 

I mean, the mentality there for some reason amongst 

3 

the male staff changes from the time they enter the Department. 
4 

And honestly, I've never had any problems from any 



5 
6 

7 



8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



inmates, which seems really amazing. It seemed like they would 
be the ones making these statements, "Oh, baby," about your 
bottom, and things like that. But it's the male officers, and 
it's allowed to happen. 

And these aren't just isolated incidents. There's 
many people out there that are having problems, not just sexual. 
ISome of them racial. A gentleman was terminated fro his job. 
He has a Master's in criminal justice. And not terminated from 
the state, but a sergeant fired him from his position because he 
was Black, not because he wasn't performing the job right. Just 
because he didn't like the color of his skin. 

I mean, to me this is appalling. It shouldn't go on. 
And it's — it seem overwhelming at Folsom Prison though. 

But I'm hope — in hopes that when you're reconfirmed 
[sic], hopefully you're reconfirmed, that you can make some 
changes, and this ~ this will stop. 

Like I said, if we all get together, and we work 
together, things will change. We can't keep going on like this, 
and the state can't afford it. I mean, come on. These people 
are — are selling the state down the tubes. It's costing me, 
you know, a state — a taxpayer a lot of money. 

MR. GOMEZ: I understand. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : Thank you very much, Ms. Rojas. 



• 70 

We appreciate it. 



2 



4 
5 

6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Rebecca Feagins. 

MS. FEAGINS: Thank you very much for having me. 
My name is Rebecca Feagins . 

At the present time, I'm working with the Community 
Connection for felons coming out of prison. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Could you talk a little bit closer 
to the microphone? Yes. 

MS. FEAGINS: At the present time I'm working with 
the Community Connection, and -- for felons coming out of 
prison. It's an outreach for the felons in order to help them 
have a new place. 

But anyway, my topic on it is also on sexual 
harassment and assaults by CDC officers on the convicts 
themselves . 

I was going to read what I have because I'm not good 
at speaking in groups . 

I wish to begin my statement by giving a short 
introduction of myself. My name is Rebecca Feagins, and due to 
my drug and alcohol addiction, I have been in the institutional 
systems since I was ten years old. I've done 13 years in 
juvenile and adult prisons during these years. 

COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. FEAGINS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm scared. 

I've done 13 years total in juvenile and adult during 
these last years. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



71 

I do want to stress, though/ that I'm clean and sober 
three years as of September 1st. 

During my life inside, I experienced a lot of 
unwarranted abuse. I have been physically hit and challenged. 
Due to my sexual orientation, I have been searched by an officer 
with open palms that touched me about my breasts and between my 
legs . 

When I would protest against the nonprofessional 
touching, I ' d be cuffed or be locked down with the treat of 
lockdown in Segregation and more abuse, and more abuse. The 
fear I felt escalated -- escalated the years that brought me to 
the prison. The fears that encouraged my addictions and afraid 
of social, normal life that I never experienced until I became 
clean and sober. 

I want to add to that, that a lot of the fears that 
— that men and women come into prison with are, as I was 
speaking with somebody today, stems a lot of it through sexual 
abuse and battering through their childhood. So, when they do 
enter the prisons, they enter with a lot of issues that aren't 
even touched. 

Now I'm working to become a drug and alcohol 
counselor. I'm going into the ministry with jails, prisons, and 
institutions as my priority. 

When a woman or man goes into prison, of all that 
should be feared and distrusted, correctional officers in the 
system should be worthy of trust. I've come to speak — I've 
come to speak on a growing problem in our prison system. 



72 
1 

The rate of sexual harassment by male officers on 
2 

female inmates has escalated. The growth is due to the fact 

when an inmate writes a 602 complaint form on the violations 

4 

against them, the C02 [sic] form tends to get misfiled, lost, or 
5 

treated as a threat, and/or the inmate placed in a Security 
6 

Housing. Then the inmate must endure more harassment and abuse, 
7 

maybe even to the greater intensity. The offending officers 
8 

know nothing will come of the complaints, so they will feel 
9 

10 



11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



(invincible. The bad behavior is excused due to the woman or 

Oman's being incarcerated. 

i 

I personally have seen women put against the wall, 
li 
told to assume the position, was not searched but groped, 

grabbed, and asked or demanded of sexual favors. There are 

women who have been forced into sexual acts due to being caught 

breaking prison rules, and told to put out or be written a 

serious CDC 115, which would have taken a parole date. 

These women comply out of fear. No woman is 
encouraged to report an offense, for she knows that what is 
taught inside is, if you're doing time, you don't have any 
rights . 

I am able to give names of women who have just 
recently been molested, threatened, and/or raped by male 
officers, but they are afraid. They have been threatened with 
retaliations if they speak. These threats are also from the 
watch sergeants and INE, Investigating and Enforcement. 

These women are eligible to the same rights as any 
woman or man on the outside. We have the right to say no, and 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



73 
no should be sufficient. No retaliations. 

And I want to add to that that I have $100 phone bill 
at my home right now, trying to get all the information I could 
for this hearing. These women have been cut off. They have 

been physically taken from the phone from me. They have been 

il 

told, "If you speak another word, you're going to lose all 

visiting privileges." 

And one woman, as I'll speak in here, has had 
tphenomenal threats taken to her. An officer at NCWS Stockton 
l!has sexually harassed a woman to the degree of physical violent 

threats. The officer had taken off his badge, stepped into her 

cell and hit, badgered, and threatened the woman to the point of 

her being in fear for her life. 

When the inmates try to push a 602 complaint against 

the same officer, the author of the complaint was placed in 
(isolation for 27 days on a three-day segregation CDC infraction. 

The 602 was lost during this time, and the officer threatened to 

il 

put her six feet under if she did not back off. And I was there 
when the threat happened. 

Another woman has been raped. Just recently, in the 
last month. Was an evidenciary done? No. Did the medical 
| staff check for damage done? No. Nothing was done about it. I 
work with Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence in Yolo County. 
We checked into this on a daily basis. Nothing was done. This 
woman is in fear for her life. I talked to her on the phone, 
and she was like — she spoke on the process of running. She is 
petrified. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



74 
She was told that if she opens her mouth and tries to 
speak about what happened, she would do the SHU program, and 
that's the Security Housing Unit about the size of your closet. 

It's a room. 

i 

This woman is petrified, as justly the rest are, of 
retaliation against them. 

I spoke to this inmate three days ago, and she was so 
afraid, she was shaking. The threats are coming from the 
controlling staff of the Stockton Prison, and she is now housed 
at Live Oak facility, and the officer is still on duty at 
jiStockton. 

A woman was molested at Live Oak by a contract 

i 

worker. She complained, a 602 written, and of course, she was 

lost in the 602-shuffle. This woman was transferred to Stockton 

and locked down for weeks . This inmate is back at Live Oak with 

la threat that if she speaks of or complains about the violation 

lagainst her, she will be punished, and is still be sexually 

harassed now by a CDC officer. 

I could go on and give many instances of sexual 

physical violations, but I would be accused of trying to 

filibuster this hearing. 

These women have been -- given me permission to use 

their names, but I feel that that would place them in danger of 

retaliation beyond your control. 

I was told to ask for a promise of no retribution or 

retaliation against me, but I don't see where you have that 

power. I'm praying that by bringing this to your attention, 



75 
1 

you, the Director of the prison system, will investigate these 

2 , 

violations and issues. 

3 

I work for Yolo County Sexual Assault and Domestic 
4 || 

Violence Crisis Intervention, and I have been trained in rape 
5 

crisis and evidenciaries . Our major item stressed is, no one 
6 

!has the right to violate another person, no matter who, what, or 



7 

i 

. 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

I 

18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



when. 

Since when did sexual, emotional, and physical 
assault become not a crime of people incarcerated? Since when 
has this system allocated a victim of abuse to be indentured to 
isolation? Why are women forced to fear the system that claims 
to want to help? 

When a person is raped, the victim has been 
demoralized, shamed, removed of self-esteem. He or she is left 
with a case of issues that require careful counseling and needs 
to know that the perpetrator is in the wrong, not the victim. 

The California Penal Code defines rape as an act of 
sexual intercourse accomplished against the victim's will by the 
use of force and fear. In California, any form of sexual 
contact carried out against a person's will is a crime, whether 
the person is male or female, period. 

I see no stipulations in the institutions, prisons, 
or jails in this definition that takes and alleviates the 
prisons and institutions. I see nowhere in any of the 
definitions I have looked up in any of the penal codes or any of 
the offenses that have been taken to court where they allow the 
institutions and the prisons to be not heard and prosecuted for 



1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



76 
their offenses. It's not happening. No one's being prosecuted. 

The trauma of rape and sexual assault is traumatic. 
To add to being incarcerated, added to the fears, then we are 
just setting up the incarcerated victims ' return to drugs and 
alcohol and an unsafe, unrealistic lifestyle, which will bring 
the victim continuously back into the prison system. 

The long-term effect of rape in a normal setting, 
traumatic. But the effect in the prison or incarceration 
situation could be fatal. He or she may never see nor have the 
changes of recovery. To recover requires trust. The system you 
tell these people to trust is untrustworthy. 

I would say, in conclusion, but I know that unless 
you, the Directors of the system, take action and control to 
make these institutions safer, there'll be no conclusion. 

How many women and men must be victimized by your 
officers before you step in and implement safe changes, programs 
to educate the training facilities to be aware of the bad 
elements being placed in uniform? 

Let's allow these women a safe due process given them 
by the federal protections laws to press charges against the 
perpetrators without retaliation against the victims. 

Where do these women turn to? We offer nothing for 
counseling and support inside the prison system. To receive 
medical care can be denied by the watch commander. These women 
are being denied their civil, humanitarian rights. 

I ask that an investigation of these issues be 
implemented immediately. Please, before a woman fights back and 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



77 
gets hurt again. 

If this happened out there, out here in freedom's 
society, we, you, I, would be in an uproar. Everything would be 
done to take care of the physical, emotional, and psychological 
needs. The perpetrator would be prosecuted to the full extent 
of the law. 

How far must these crimes go before you take control 
over your officers? 

And I thank you for your considerate time. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Ms. Feagins . 

MS. FEAGINS: You're welcome. 

May I say one other thing, please? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, please. 

MS. FEAGINS: This is really quick. I'm shaking like 
a leaf. 

This was the hardest thing I've ever done. I'm 
bringing to you an issue. I want to respect your position 
because I work very hard to respect the law now, and I, too, 
would give everything in my power to help reordinate [sic], 
recoordinate some of the laws that are now helping prisoners 
come into action. 

: 

One of the things that is happening, though, is I am 
going into the ministry. And I work with MCC churches, which is 
an open church to all orientations — Black, White, sexual 
orientation, gay, lesbian. Anything you so desire, we try to 
cover all issues. 

I've been trying to help issue a prison ministry, and 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



78 

we're being stopped. CIW, the California Institution for Women, 

i 

has had the MCC church in it. I have asked, I have written 
letters in the last two years to bring this about so that we can 
get in the prison and counsel brothers and sisters that are of 
the gay and lesbian orientation that want to worship as 
Christians. And a lot of the Protestant ministers inside the 
institutions will not allow them. I, myself, have been asked to 
leave the Protestant ministry during church when I was in a 
prison because I was tattooed lesbian. He felt that I was a bad 



MS. FEAGINS: The head clergy, deacon, pastor, 
Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, whatever is heading that 

institution's worship services. 

|! 

I feel that the people that I have talked to are 

being denied their right to worship. I know myself, I'm a 

lesbian, and it doe not bother me to state this — it's a really 

strange statement. And I'm a Christian. I like it, and I'm 

clean and sober due to my God. 

And I feel that I have an opportunity here to help 
other people who have gone through the garbage that I ' ve been 
through. And I'm a victim of just about every type of abuse you 
can imagine. 

I want to be there. But we cannot be there if we're 
not allowed in. 

There are people who want to help who are not of this 
orientation, but do want to bring the word into these people, 



79 
l 

and they belong to our church. They are of the straight 



faction. 



So, I also place before you — 

4 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are there any, to your knowledge, 
5 

openly gay or lesbian ministers — 

6 

MS. FEAGINS: Oh, yes. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I know that, but in the prison 

system? 

MS. FEAGINS: No. Oh, excuse me, forgive me. Yes, 



7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
->"> 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



ithere are. At CIW, again, like I said, MCC is down there. And 
the Reverend Jean, who is heading the CIW Free Spirit MCC, is in 

there at the present time, but she is not a — not a — 

'i 

MR. GOMEZ: She's not a paid employee. 

MS. FEAGINS: Yes, thank you; appreciate it. 

I 

MR. GOMEZ: She's a volunteer. 

MS. FEAGINS: Yeah, she's a volunteer. 

I could go back into 1972, when I first started my 

I 

time in '69, when we had an open lesbian warden, but 

i 1 

Junfortunately, we had a Christian group also, but that was 

booted out very fast . There has never been anybody on the 

I 

payroll, as far as my knowledge, since then at all. It's not 

allowed. Immoral, in just, unsocial, whatever someone wishes to 

place — whatever category, whatever hat you want to put on it. 

But their issues are there that need to be met, and 

these people are there. Whether we agree or disagree with their 

attitudes, and their orientations, or their religious needs, 

they need to be met. And the more that we meet, the less that 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



19 
20 
21 

2~> 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



80 
Will come back. 

And I am sitting here as an example, because I am a 
28-year person of your system. I stayed 28 years in the 
California penal system, and I'm making it. And I'm doing it. 
And I can say that these people need it, and I want to help. 

So, I'm bringing that up now, hoping that that will 

also open up for further investigation that we can, as the MCC 

i 

ichurch, be available for the prisons in this area — Folsom, 

Stockton, CIW, even as far down as Madera — to go in and be 



available for the brothers and sisters, and anyone that wishes 
11 | 

to have us. 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 



And I thank you for your time . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you very much. 

Senator Petris has a question for you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm wondering if we can ask her to 
share the specifics with Mr. Gomez, and ask him to check it out 
and, maybe, let us know what happens? 

MR. GOMEZ: We'll be happy. Those are very serious 
charges she made. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's right. 

MR. GOMEZ: And we will have an investigator contact 
her tomorrow or tonight, at her leisure, and take the 
information. And we'll investigate it, and we'll report back to 
Rules . Those are very serious charges . 

Regarding the issue of religion, we have Catholic, 
Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim clergymen within our 
institutions, about 80 positions that are paid. 



81 

l 

We also have probably 500 to 1,000 volunteers, a 

2 

tremendous volunteer effort that goes into the prison system 
3 

from all different faiths, gay and lesbian on occasion, you name 

4 

it. It comes into the prison system in terms of a voluntary 

5 L • 

basis . 
6 

On a paid basis, the only thing we pay at this point 

7 

in time, about 80 positions' worth, are the Catholic, 
8 

Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim. 
9 

MS. FEAGINS: Forgive me, Mr. Gomez, but there hasn't 
10 

been a gay or lesbian volunteer enter a Northern California 
ll 

penal institution in over ten years. Not at all. 



12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 | 

26 

27 

28 



We have — I got a document at home to show you where 
the courts have said we were allowed to enter Folsom, and the 
head pastorial [sic] person said, "You enter our prison, and 
I'll give you nothing but Hades." 

So, no, sir, we have not allowed to. 

And the other thing issuing on the investigation, 
that's great. But I need to know on record that when these 
women speak up, they're going to get out of prison, and they're 
not going to get bumped when they get out. Because one woman 
who is violated right now is violated due to severe harassment. 

MR. GOMEZ: I'm not going to give you that guarantee. 

I do not have any information, other than your word, 
at this point in time that these are true facts . And for me to 
sit here and give you that guarantee would be ludicrous. 

I will give you a guarantee that we'll investigate 
it, we'll look at it, but I can't sit here and tell you that 



82 

these are fact, that they're substantiated, that they're 
corroborated, that there ' re individuals that are going to be 
charged, that they're going to get out of prison. 

No, they're not going to get out of prison. We're 
going to take a look at the issues, and if there ' re problems, 
we'll move them if they need to be moved to a different 
institution. If they feel retaliation is possible, we can — we 
can do those kind of things . 

But to get out of prison, no. I'd be — 

MS. FEAGINS: That's not what I'm saying. 

MR. GOMEZ: — not doing my duty. 

MS. FEAGINS: That's not what I'm saying. 

I 'm saying — 

SENATOR PETRIS: You don't have that authority. 

MS. FEAGINS: Yeah. What I'm saying is that these 
women are concerned that when they leave prison, when they press 
charges against these officers, that when they walk off the 
gate, this officer could step before them without a badge and 
hurt them. 

When they are inside the prison, these officers, when 
you're not looking, will hurt you. They will hurt you. I've 
witnessed it. 

These women are scared to death. They have been told 

24 

— this one woman has been told that if she does anything, she's 

25 

going to go to a SHU program. They will set her up. She's 
26 

afraid. Petrified to come forward. 

27 

That's why I'm saying, all I want to know is that if 

28 il 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 



23 



83 
l 

Ithey speak up, I give you their names and numbers — which I 

2 j 

have them on my person right now — that nothing is — they ' re 
3 

not going to get hurt inside. They're afraid of that, because 

4 

they're being hurt right now, and no one's doing nothing about 
5 

it. 

6 

MR. GOMEZ: We will look at each individual case 
7 

based on what they tell us. 
8 

And I will guarantee you that we will try to have no 
9 

retaliation take place, as you define retaliation. 
10 

I — I don't believe, as a general rule, retaliation 



11 



12 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



takes place in the Department on an issue like she talks about, 

but there are issues that it does happen. But as a general 

I 

rule, no. Retaliation doesn't take place. 

But if these women are so concerned, we more than 
likely -- we will track them. We'll follow them. 

I feel comfortable with the kind of commitment I'm 
making. 

And I have my Chief Deputy and the head of 
Affirmative Action who'd be happy to meet with you when you turn 
around and leave. 

MS. FEAGINS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Feagins . 

The next witness is Gregory Ford. 

MR. FORD: My name is Gregory Ford. I'm a 
correctional officer at Folsom State Prison. 

I'm extremely grateful to the Department for giving 
me a job. I've struggled with a dyslexia problem all my life, 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



84 
and to have a job like this, I'm very grateful. 

I am concerned about the Department . It has been 
polarized since I've been in there, since '86. 

I come to the Department with approximately 17 years 
of military experience in various jobs, such as Presidential 
security at the Western White House, drug enforcement in the 
Caribbean. I could mention guerrilla warfare, and information 
collection practices on spying and espionage and terrorism 
against United Armed Forces . 

I -- I thought and I would like to, you know, make a 
contribution to the Department, so I jumped at the chance when 
Dr. Ed McNair offered me a chance to do something. I don't like 

feeling helpless when somebody comes up to me and says, "What 

i 

can I do about somebody who's — who's harassing me into a 
corner? What can I do?" 

You know, I know we're trained. I know we have 
certain types of classes that say, yes, you have to document 
this sexual harassment. But it's just not enough. It isn't 
working. It wasn't effective. 

So, I have attempted to put together a program that 
would be a high speed source of data retrieval for the 
Department. I have somewhat of an expertise in computers and 

computer bases. I — in fact, I'm the inventor of the 

jj 
artificial intelligence guarded thought chip. I also am 

developing the liquid light circuitry, okay. 

I know that doesn't have any place here, but I do 

have some expertise, so I was asked to set up this violence 



2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 | 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

24 

I 
25 

26 

27 



85 
management program. And the violence management program is 
based on predicting certain types of violent inmates, behavior, 
the different groups that perpetuate violence within the 
Department . 

And also, I realized that the Department is getting 
so big, and the budget is so big, it also takes on kind of a 
feudal-type situation: 21 institutions on line, with 21 wardens 
almost like kings, each one has his own semi-autonimus state. 
There has to be some kind of system for diagnostic purposes. 
Okay, how healthy is an organization, how healthy is that 
institution? 

So, I — I spent several thousand dollars of my own 
money. I contacted several corporations. I received the 
permission and the go-ahead from my warden and my chief 
deputies . 

I mailed a plan for this proposal to Director, then 
Chief Deputy Director, Gomez, Robert Denninger, and then James 
Rowland who was the Director at the time, and Mamie Davis. 

I received positive feedback from the Director. In 
fact, the Director sent a letter to Senator Presley to go ahead 
with the program. 

The program was based on, besides behavioral 
statistics and predictions, corporate predictions on how healthy 
an organization can be, which, of course, were based on 
individuals who communicate. 

At that point, I made several presentations of a 
proposal and the computer software to go with it. And I've 



3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



86 
offered this system to the Department of Corrections, free of 
charge, just take it, set it up. 

The system has been effective in the outer provinces 
of Australia. It's broken up an organized crime ring. The 
Department of Corrections in Australia thinks high accolades of 
the system. 

I basically hope my — what my problem with this 
proposal has been is that I've run into cronyism: the threat of 
sexual harassment being exposed; the threat of organized crime 
-- organized gangsters within the system being too positively 
dealt with, dismantled, their leadership and infrastructure 
taken apart . 

I made the proposal. Everyone has liked it so far, 
but when I took it back to Folsom Prison, I was informed, after 
Dr. John Galloway and Dr. Tom Johnson — Dr. Tom Johnson being 
from the Trilateral Commission on Crime, and Dr. Galloway being 
from Australia — and the Net Mat Corporation, I was informed 
that, no, my system is too much of a danger. It's too apparent. 
It will — it will present problems in the system too quickly to 
the top people, and it also allows the top person to carry a 
brass back. In other words, he can thump somebody who's doing 
jwrong, and it's readily apparent where the loss in the system 
is . 

So, I'm — I'm at this point. I've virtually been 
told, "Look, you want to press this issue? Fine, go ahead. 
Maybe you can press the issue of three years of adverse actions 
and three years of appeals to go with it. Now, if you can 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



87 
afford that, fine. Go ahead. But otherwise, you drop the 
project right now." 

I do it out of benevolent concern. I don't like 
being helpless. I've created something — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 

Who told you that? 

MR. FORD: It was an administrator at Folsom Prison. 

SENATOR PETRIS: High up? 

MR. FORD: Very. 

I don't like seeing these women put in this position. 
I don't like — for instance, I don't like going on to the B 
Folsom Yard with Dr. Tom Johnson and Dr. McNair, and having to 
dive for cover as the bullets plowed up ground 30 feet in front 
of us while two inmates were stabbed. 

My system does predict. It does help, and it has 
proved itself effective. 

I just don't like being put in the position of not 
having the captain of this ship being able to say, as I asked 
Director Rowland to do, to say, "Hey, okay." If you don't want 
the program, fine; we'll drop it. But I don't want adverse 
action threats. I don't like the thought of paying a lot of 
money for adverse action threats . 

You know, what I'm concerned of, I'm concerned about 
right here, is if this man can actually impose the power of that 
office that he is applying for to actually control these people? 
That's what I'm concerned about, and that's why I feel in 
opposition. 



88 

l 

I have put out something. I have struggled, and I've 

2 

done it out of benevolence. 
3 , 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Ford. 

4 

Any questions? 
5 

Maybe, Mr. Gomez, you could respond. 

6 

MR. GOMEZ: In all due respect, I've never met Mr. 

7 |j 

Ford before. I've never heard this issue in my life before. 
8 

The document that he has in front of him, the 
9 

document of Violence Management Program Concept Discussion, 
10 I 

dated September 28th, 1989, I was Deputy County Executive of 
ll 

Santa Clara County at that time. 
12 j 

I've never seen the proposal, never heard of the 
13 

proposal. I know nothing about the proposal. 

14 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I think a problem that Mr. Gomez 

is confronting is that a lot of things have sort of brewed up 
16 

prior to your assuming this position, and — 

17 

MR. GOMEZ: I've just never — I mean, I'll be happy 
18 

to review it. And I think we ought to give him a response. 
19 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Why don't you re-submit it? 
20 

MR. GOMEZ: I'll be more than happy to. 

MR. FORD: If I may answer. 

22 ; 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 
23 

I think he ' s concerned about some administrator 

24 

telling him to get lost, and if he tries to go anywhere with 



25 
26 

27 
28 



this, he's going to be under adverse action. 

MR. GOMEZ: Well, then that's inappropriate if it's 
happening. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



89 

I'm more than happy to review this and give him a 
response in a month in terms of what we as a Department think. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I certainly would recommend you do 
that. 

If you have any problem with an administrator giving 
you trouble, let Mr. Gomez know, let us know. But I would 
suggest you re-submit it. 

MR. FORD: In response to Mr. Gomez's statement, I 
was approached during the time that he was Chief Deputy 

■ 

Director. This problem — and this proposal was put forward, 

and it was a sequential chain of command concept. 

He might not remember it, but it was on his desk. I 
j| 
have references that show that, yes, he and Mamie Davis, as well 

as Bob Denninger, were the recipients. 

MR. GOMEZ: And he may be right. It may have gone 
through my desk. A lot of things go through my desk. 

I'll go back and take a look at it. 

But I can only tell you the date that — the only 

i 

thing I saw in front of me is the date. I know I was not — not 
in California — in Sacramento. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: He will go through it, and I would 
suggest you re-submit it, too, in case they can't find it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have any report from 
Australia? You mentioned they seemed to like it, or they used 
it? 

MR. FORD: Yes. We can have a report sent up. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It seems to me that that ought to be 



points there that might be helpful. 

MR. FORD: The Australians were more than helpful in 
sending people up, presenting their reports and problems that 
they had, and suggestions that they've made. So, they've been 
here, and it was well received. 

SENATOR PETRIS: By whom? By the prison people here? 

MR. FORD: Right, the prison people, right. 



9 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, all of that ought to be 

brought to Mr. Gomez's attention, I would think. 

11 MR. FORD: Right. 

12 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

13 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

14 

Next is Mr. Robert Bales. 

MR. BALES: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for allowing me to — 



17 
18 
19 

20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: State your name. 

MR. BALES: — speak. My name is Robert or Bob 
Bales. I served the Department of Corrections for 33 and a half 
years as an employee. I retired yesterday. Ironically, today, 
April Fool's Day, is my first day of freedom. 

I want to talk about a whistle blower situation that 
I became involved in last year that I have real concern about 
the way it was handled. I want to preface my remarks by saying 
that even though Mr. Gomez took the action that I'm about to 
describe, I'm not sure that the information he was provided was 
accurate and all of what it should have been. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



91 
End of January of last year, I received a telephone 
call from a man named Louie Dentisi. Louie Dentisi was the head 
of the Special Services Unit at the time for the Department of 
Corrections. He told me that an associate warden at CIM — I 
was the chief deputy warden at CIM at that time — told me that 
an associate warden from CIM had called a deputy director named 

Dave Tristan and had told Dave Tristan that an audit or an 

I 

investigation needed to be conducted of certain top managers at 
CIM institution. And he apparently was specific as to who some 
of the people were, and specific as to what they should look 
for. 

When Dentisi called me, he asked two questions. He 
asked, number one, if I felt that such an investigation would 
indeed be appropriate; and number two, if such an investigation 
was conducted, would I cooperate. 

I answered in the affirmative to both questions. 

i 

Mr. Dentisi told me that because of the sensitivity 

of the thing, and the fact that top managers were involved, he 

wanted to interview me, take a statement from me personally. 

And he asked me if I would prefer to fly to Sacramento to do 

that, or would I rather he fly down there. I told him that if 

it did not matter to him, I would prefer he come down there. 

We agreed upon a time to meet, and I believe it was a 

Wednesday or a Thursday that we were speaking. We were supposed 

to meet the following Tuesday, and I told him that I would make 

arrangements to be off duty, away from the institution, on the 

day that we were going to meet and speak. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



92 

On that day, Mr. Dentisi did not show up. I didn't 
hear from him, and he didn't show up. I waited a couple of 
days, thinking he could contact me, and he did not. 

So, I called his office to find out what had happened 
and was told that he no longer worked for the Department, that 
he had taken off on sick leave and was going to remain on sick 
leave, or vacation time, or something like that, for 
approximately five months until he retired in July. 

So, I think there's some kind of an interesting 
story, maybe, behind that, but forget that for now. 

Two Special Services agents did indeed come to the 
institution. They showed up. And they started looking at the 
areas that had been, you know, the information that had been 
provided. We're talking about some top managers. 

It was ironic that one of the Special Services 
investigators was widely known as being a close personal friend 
of one of the top managers that was being investigated. And the 
other person, in my opinion, had very questionable credentials 
as an investigator. 

Anyway, it was immediately apparent to me that they 
were going to try to minimize, or rationalize, whitewash the 
thing in every way that they could, but it's also my opinion 
that they were unable to do that, even though they tried to. I 
gave them some documents that I know were incriminating, and I 
know that they had to act on. 

As a result of that investigation, and it lasted for 
a few months, based on my knowledge of what was going on at at 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
->■> 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 



93 
the institution, I know three top managers should have been 
disciplined. Those three top managers that I know should have 
been disciplined, one was transferred into another position at 
the same level, and two were allowed to retire. 

Now, the two people that provided evidence, and it 
happened to be myself and the associate warden that had 
originally called -- that was a man named Ron Keenan — I was 
immediately removed from my position, demoted, and immediately 
reassigned to an institution at Wasco, which is approximately 
170-180 miles from where I live. No charge whatsoever was 
brought against me, and I'm confident that they do not have a 
charge against me, or any claim of incompetence, or malpractice, 
or anything else, to this day. I feel it was nothing but purely 
a retaliatory act. 

The really, really sad thing, I guess, though, was 
with Keenan, the other fellow that provided information. His 
wife was undergoing treatment for cancer at the time this 
occurred, and she was going into Los Angeles two times a week 
for radiation treatment. 

He was ordered to report to Madera, Madera. I think 
I said Wasco a while ago. I was ordered to report to Wasco, and 
he was ordered to report to Madera. This is Thursday, and I'm 
ordered to be in Wasco Monday morning. 

Anyway, he was ordered immediately to Madera, and he 
moved up as he was instructed to do so, and his wife 
subsequently died. And that's, you know, not necessarily 
because of the move or what happened. It was probably 



3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



94 
inevitable anyway, but it just added a really sad climax to the 
whole incident. 

I tell the story because I think it's pretty classic 
of the cold, callous, kind of conduct that I have witnessed on 
the part of the California Department of Corrections for 33 and 
a half years. And I went almost to the top of that Department. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Bales. 

Mr. Gomez. 

MR. GOMEZ: I've not seen the report he's alluding 
to. I made some management decisions regarding Chino, and it 
had nothing to do with it. 

I terminated the top two CEA appointments . Those are 
called Career Executive Appointments, which serve at the 
pleasure of the Director. I terminated both the CEAs and had 
them reassigned to other facilities. I also transferred three 
other associate wardens within that facility, brought in an 
entirely new team to manage the facility. 

And I'm comfortable with the decisions I made. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you. 

I think we are going to break for five minutes. 
[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will come to order. 

We have as our next witness Mr. Mike Corcoran. 

MR. CORCORAN: Good evening, Committee Members, 

I 

Mr. Gomez. 

I work at Folsom Prison. I've been there six years. 
In 1990, Senator Robert Presley, Chairman of the 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 
14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



95 
'Joint Legislative Committee on Prison Construction and 
Operations, commissioned an investigation of Folsom Prison which 
documented egregious wasteful practices in a number of areas, 
including inmate food, clothing, in-service training, adverse 
actions, utility usage, phone usage by inmates, inmate visits, 
et cetera. 

While the report focused only on Folsom Prison, the 
findings therein were applicable to all prison facilities in the 

state. More importantly, the report illustrated the dire need 

l 

for a leader, a reformist Director who would take the lead in 

bringing about changes that would not only save the taxpayers 

money and bring future — further professionals to the 

Department, while at the same time serving the public safety. 

Mr. James Gomez has failed to meet his calling. 

The following points are submitted as reasons why 
James Gomez should not be confirmed as the next Director for the 
Department of Corrections. 

For a year now, he has not implemented any 
substansive [sic] changes in how the Department is run. 
Question, what changes has he made during the last year that can 
be categorized as substansive [sic] changes in the way the 
Department runs? 

He has not brought with him any new cabinet 
administrators, but rather has retained and relied on the same 
group of administrators who ran the Department under the former 
Director Jim Rowland. Question, why has he retained the same 
crop of high level administrators who have been at the helm of 



3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



96 
the Department's wasteful practices for so many years? 

Under the guise of being very supportive of Senator 
Presley's efforts to reform the Department, he has authorized 
staff to oppose all the Senator's legislation aimed at righting 

— ridding the Department of wasteful practices and bringing 
about professionalism. Question, why did his staff oppose each 
and every piece of legislation introduced in the reform package 
introduced by Senator Robert Presley last year? 

The Senator's reform package would have: raised the 
standards for wardens and deputy wardens, SB 34 3; would have 
changed the current abuse in the state's civil service employee 
adverse actin process, SB 344; would have create a uniform 
office of Medical Services run by doctors, not wardens, SB 346; 
would have created an independent and coordinated office of 
Inspector General to investigate staff and administrator 
misconduct, SB 347; and would have created a coordinated and 
uniform program for inmate education, SB 345. 

He has failed to take meaningful disciplinary action 
against wardens and upper eschelon staff that have obviously 
been derelict in exercising their duties, and has in fact 
systematically allowed everyone of them to pig out on future 
retirement benefits. Question, why is Warden Borg still missing 

— or still managing Folsom Prison after the embarrassing 
investigation done by Senator Presley's office? Then he 
committed a felony by taking a gun on the prison's ground and 
received minor discipline. Is he being allowed to pig out on 
more retirements? 



3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



97 

Why was Otis Thurman, former warden at CIM Chino, 
allowed to become warden of Lancaster all -- after all the 
misconduct that was alleged against him? 

Why is the warden at R.J. Donovan under 
investigation? 

More importantly, why hasn't James Gomez removed 
these wardens and others out of the system? 

He has failed to make constructive changes in the 
area of management or in the operation of any prison. He has 
appointed some new people, but the same problems continue, i.e., 
retaliation against staff, IDL NDL problems, continued inmate 
medical neglect. 

Question, why has Mr. Gomez during the last year he 
has been in office to address these concerns -- what has he 
done? 

In light of the above list of problems, whether 
perceived or actual, the only way to bring about change in the 
Department of Corrections is to appoint an outside person with 
proven administrative skills, and with the vision and gumption 
to bring about changes for the better. 

Waste is obvious everywhere at Folsom Prison: waste 
of manpower, waste of supplies, waste of food, waste of 
utilities, waste of human potential in meaningless programs. 
Trying to go through the chain of command to correct any problem 
also have proven to be a complete waste. All that does is 
invite reprisals and character assassination. 

Mr. Gomez would rather attack my character than deal 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



98 
with any issues I may raise. That's why he's not fit for 
leadership. That's why, in 1989, I began supplying Senator 
Robert Presley's Joint Legislative Prisons Committee with 
reports and internal memoranda detailing waste. 

I'm the guy who exposed the fact that inmates were 
throwing away $1,000 worth of clothing and linen each day. I 
the guy who blew the whistle on the dumping of the raw sewage in 
the American River, and that the food waste by the inmates was 
so prevalent, they were using slices of bread a napkins. 

Mr. Gomez was Chief Deputy Director of the Department 



of Corrections at this time. He and other top managers all 
12 

denied these reports and engaged in character assassination 



13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



against me and the other officers who dared to speak out. 

Senator Presley's Committee eventually produced this 
report in April, 1990, documenting the wasteful practices. What 
was the response at Folsom? You may recall that chief deputy 
warden Robert Briggs threatened a group of officers with 
discipline if any of them talked to the Legislators. And what 
the CDC response to that? They promoted Mr. Briggs to warden at 
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. 

You gentlemen on this Committee had good sense to 
refuse to confirm Warden Briggs, but he stayed on as chief 
deputy warden at Chuckawalla Valley, and Mr. Gomez has seen fit 
to keep him in that position. 

I could talk to you all afternoon about waste and 
mismanagement in the prison system. Mr. Gomez has done 
absolutely nothing in the past to correct it. 



99 

l 

But after hearing Mr. Gomez's testimony here last 

2 

week, I have a more important matter to discuss. It is his 
3 

complete failure to exercise moral leadership and enforce state 

4 

and federal laws dealing in civil rights. 

You heard Mr. Gomez say last week that it's going to 
take ten years to put an end to the problems of sexual 
harassment in the prison system. What he was telling women in 
Corrections is, they've got to put up with more crude comments, 
unwanted touching, and pandering for more — for ten more years. 
Gentlemen, that shouldn't be allowed to go on for ten more 
minutes . 

I work with many outstanding women, but they find 
themselves in a male-dominated, paramilitary system where the 
good old boys will tell any lie to protect each other's 
misconduct. 

Senator Craven and Senator Beverly, I know that you 
both are ex-Marines. I'm also an ex-Marine. I spent seven 
years as an attack pilot. I know what it means to serve with 
the best. At Corrections, I learned what it means to serve with 
some of the worst. 

Ex-Marines know that with proper leadership, all 
30,000 correctional employees could be told now, today, that 
sexual harassment is taboo. All Mr. Gomez has to do is give the 
order, and then fire every person who disobeys it. But 
Mr. Gomez won't do that. Instead, he tells women like Denise 
Chacon, who testified here last week, that the state will pay to 
move them. Those who have been harassing them can stay where 



5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



100 
they are . 

I'd like Mr. Gomez to tell this Committee how many 
sexual harassment cases he's settled in the past year and for 
how many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd like to discuss 
just one of these cases. 

This one cost the state $165,000 in settlement costs, 
and hundreds of thousands more in legal fees, investigative and 
administrative time. It involved a Folsom captain, Joe 
Gonzales, and two women victims. 

The investigative files are now open since they were 
filed at the State Personnel Board. The files reveal sordid, 
lurid behavior, misconduct at the chief deputy level, warden 
level, of the prison. I'll spare you many of the details and 
just say this. Captain Gonzales harassed one of the women for 
years. When she refused his sexual advances, he enlisted other 
commanders to make her life miserable and spread vicious rumors. 
He pay was taken away. Her benefits were disrupted, and a phone 
investigation was launched against her. Money was even taken 
out of her deferred compensation account, and Gonzales's EEO 
file came up missing from a locked safe. 

But while all this was going on, Captain Gonzales and 
associate warden, Ted Zink, would sit in the Folsom cafeteria, 
day after day, making racial and sexual jokes about everyone who 
came and went. Warden Borg ignored the problem. 

Captain Gonzales was finally tripped up when a female 
investigator from the Attorney General's Office was sent to 
interview him. This woman worked for Captain Gonzales's own 



1 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
2"> 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 



101 
state-provided defense team in a sexual harassment lawsuit. 

Here's just one of the things Captain Gonzales did. 
He asked the investigator if she'd be interested in something 
round and brown and hard in his pocket. 

This woman was so upset, she went out on stress 
leave. Of course, the taxpayers were paying her salary while 
she was on leave. 

Months and months later, Captain Gonzales was finally 
demoted to correctional officer, but not fired. He's been 
working at the Central Office at a made-up job for months now, 

but he's still living in subsidized housing on the Folsom Prison 

: i 
grounds . 

But that's not all. There's a third women mentioned 
prominently in the investigation files. Both Gonzales and now 
chief deputy warden were having sex with this woman. The 
records reveal that hiring practices were manipulated so that 
she could get hired by Corrections. They they were manipulated 
some more so she could be assigned to Folsom Prison. And they 
both continued to have sex with her, even though the deputy 
warden was married. 

Remember that Mr. Gomez told you last week about not 
tolerating sleeping in the ranks. There are at least a dozen 
people who could be disciplined in this case, but no one has 
been disciplined by Captain Gonzales, and he still has a job. I 
bet even Captain Gonzales wouldn't have been disciplined if it 
weren't for the fact that Mr. Gomez was coming up for 
confirmation. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2? 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



102 

Of course, Mr. Gomez has reason to soft-peddle sexual 
harassment. His own boss has been found guilty of sexual 
harassment. I'm talking about Joe Sandoval, Secretary of Youth 
and Adult Correctional Agency. July, 1999 [sic], Joe Sandoval 
was found guilty of intentional sex discrimination by the State 
Personnel Board. The Board ordered that his victim be given 
$30,000. Joe Sandoval petitioned for a rehearing, but he lost 
that one, too. 

Governor — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: What does that have to do with 
Mr. Gomez, the Sandoval case? 

MR. CORCORAN: Well, how is he going to do it if his 
own boss does it? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I would hate for all the employees 
around here to be responsible for everything their bosses do. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. CORCORAN: Well, somebody's got to be 
responsible. 

The great State of California has a cabinet officer 
who's guilty of sex discrimination. 

Finally, I'd like to say that you heard from Denise 
Chacon last week, and you're hearing from some more women today. 
I hope you appreciate how much courage it takes for them to be 
here. They are targets. A big bulls-eye has been painted on 
them. 

I hope your Committee will keep in touch with these 
brave women and help them through — help them when the arrows 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 



14 
15 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



103 
come flying, because as sure as I'm sitting here, somebody is 
going to try an intimidate them. 

These people in Corrections, they act like managerial 
tyrants, and they abuse the workers. And people are telling 
other people time in and time out, and nothing's being done. 
They try to force performance out of people instead of inspiring 
them. 

In tough economic times like this, we can't afford 
management styles that suppress and intimidate, and we've got 
them all over. 

We have no role models. I can't think of one role 



model in the Department of Corrections. Funny, in the Marine 

13 

Corps I saw thousands of them. 



The morale is terrible. It's costing the state 
thousands of dollars. The sick leave is abused because people 
don't want to come to work. 

I come to work because they gave me the job. I 
signed on. 

I haven't seen any vision in the Department. I mean, 
everybody's talking about all the stuff, and nothing's been done 
even, and he's been there for a whole year. This — it should 
have been done . 

We have — we need somebody like the Little Hoover 
Commission to come in here. I mean, this thing is serious, and 
nobody's listening to these people. 

Sure, the big shots aren't going to say anything to 
you. It's the little people who are coming down here saying, 



2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



104 
"Hey, we've got problems. Big problems. We've got people 
trying to intimidate. They're covering stuff up. Stuff is 
getting stolen from the prison. The inmates are being screwed 
with. " 

Ethics, I kind of wanted to keep Senator Greene here 
the other day, because he could work on this. There's no 
standardization in the Department of Corrections. There's not 
even the same forms between Old Folsom and New Folsom. Not even 
the same forms. We need to have standardization. 

And I -- it bothers me hearing these people talk 
about the chain of command when none of them have ever been in 
the military. I was hammered in that thing, and as a Marine 
officer, they hammered it in me, take care of my troops. 

They talk about — Mr. Gomez keeps talking about 
investigations, investigations. Corrections can't investigate 
itself. It's proven that out a thousand times over. It cannot 
investigate itself. 

So, I'm against the confirmation, and don't think 
what — that my thoughts are, you know, the only thoughts that 
come from Folsom Prison. There's plenty of people behind me. 
And as I left today, a guy called me over and said, "Hey, Mike, 
I really appreciate what you've been doing." And I had to tell 
my mom this morning that I work in a cess pool. I'm 4 7 years 
old, and I work in a cess pool. That's exactly what it is. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Corcoran. 

Mr. Gomez. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 



105 

MR. GOMEZ: I fundamentally disagree with 90 percent 
of what he said, and I think character assassinated some people 
he has no business character assassinating. 

I think he's taken partial facts and distorted them, 
and I'm not going to respond to any more than that, unless you 
Members have questions you'd like me to particularly respond to. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Any questions? No questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Corcoran. 

Otila Vega. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, maybe — I did want a response 
to some of the specific things Mr. Corcoran alleged, but I don't 
remember now in detail. I thought you might have had some notes 
you could have gone down. Some of those you might be able to 
respond to, it seems to me. 

MR. GOMEZ: Well, he listed about 50 of them very 
fast . 

I can tell you that his issues on waste, he was right 
in some regard on some of the waste that was going on. And I 



think a lot of that has changed at Folsom. 

20 

I believe that on all the issues with Senator 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Presley, I just fundamentally disagree with him on all the 
bills. Senator Presley and I have discussed each and every one 
of those bills. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: As you recall, Senator Presley did 
come and testify in support of confirmation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I know. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: He didn't agree with any of the 



11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



106 
opposition that Mr. Gomez registered against his bills, but he 
did testify in support. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

I wasn't focusing on the waste problem. Senator 
Boatwright did a lot of work on that, too. He's the one that 
told us about the steaks that were thrown away, and stuff like 
that, before Senator Presley got into it. 

But the other stuff on personnel interests me. 



MR. GOMEZ: Well, on the issue of — if I say 

10 



tomorrow, "Everybody stop sexual harassment," and I've said it, 

and I've reinforced it, it's not going to -- that's not enough. 

For him to say that all I have to do is say, "It stops 

tomorrow," it won't stop tomorrow. It's going to take some 

time. 
i 

It needs a commitment of thousands of people in the 

Department of Corrections. 

I agree with him. I shouldn't — it shouldn't be 
tolerated ten minutes more tomorrow. And when we find it, we 
won't tolerate it, and we should deal with it right then and 
there . 

On the issues of some of the personnel he mentioned, 
he's obviously read some documents that have been filed with the 
State Personnel Board, but I don't believe, when he talked about 
some administrators sleeping, as an example of an issue, I did 
not find the same results in those documents that he found. 

I can tell you that there have been investigations on 
different employees in the Department of Corrections. And when 



2 
3 
4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



107 
we — when we believe we find something, we take action on it. 

There's an awful -- this Department in many instances 
runs an awful lot on rumor. If tomorrow, we investigate Sam 
Smith, 5,000 people are talking about Sam and what's being 
investigated, what isn't, and what's it going to — what's going 
to come out of it. 

Sam Smith has a right to confidentiality in that 
.investigation, and if we find nothing, nothing happens. We 
don't go back out and rebroadcast to the world that we looked at 
the following 13 charges and found none of them — none of them 
are true. It's inappropriate in the process that we have. 

An awful lot of things in this Department go through 

that kind of a rumor mill from an investigation. 

i 

In terms of — I mean, he believes that there 
shouldn't be programs for inmates. I met with Mr. Corcoran for 
an hour, hour and a half. That's a — I think it was about six 
months ago, Mike? He came in and said he wanted to spend an 
hour with me. I set it up, and he came in and I met with him. 

We philosophically discussed where he thinks the 
Department should go, and where I think the Department should 
go. We're not in a lot of agreement. We're not in a lot of 
agreement . 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's his position? 

MR. GOMEZ: He's a correctional officer at Folsom. 
He's one of 17,000 uniformed staff working the California prison 
system. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 



I 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



108 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Vega. 

MS. VEGA: My name is Otila Vega, and I've been 
employed for a total of eight years. 

And it makes me sick to come up here. It makes me 
sick to my stomach to sit here and listen to all of this lip 
service, because it's very cheap, and it's very easy to make 
promises . 

Okay, there are a lot of women out here who have been 

ij 

here that have been sexually harassed. I'm one of them. I'm — 

as a result of my reporting sexual harassment, I was raped. I 

was set up to be raped by an inmate by a staff member. Nothing 

was ever done . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: When did this occur? 

MS. VEGA: Right around '87, back in '87. 

I reported it. 

I had an incident with an MTA. I'm an x-ray tech, 
and I therefore work in a darkroom. And this MTA approached me. 
He fondled my breasts . I pushed him away and reported it to 

Nancy Robinson, who was the head of Nursing. She informed me 

•i 

that, "It's part of your job. Consider the source. He does it 

Ijto everyone . " 

I don't believe that I can ask any of you, and I was 
a little offended when I heard somebody up here state that it's 
part of our job. It isn't part of our job. I'm not there to be 
fondled. I'm not there to be played with. Okay? 

I reported it, and nothing was done. This same man 
that I reported for sexual harassment was later investigated by 



109 
Ms. Crawford. Seven other women reported, "Yes, this man has 
physically touched me. He has verbally assaulted me." Nothing 
was done. 

Later on, this same gentleman took great pride in 
telling me that he had set me up for a rape. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was this in 1987? 

MS. VEGA: [Nods in the affirmative.] 



8 

You can make all the promises that you want. You sit 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



here and you can say it's going to taken ten years, but it will 

1 

never take what you people have taken from me. It will never 

give that back to me. 

If — the Department of Corrections has made my life 
hell, and nobody, nobody has given a goddamn. 

I'm good at what I do. 

God forgive me, I'm sorry. 

It's not a joke. We're not a piece of meat out 
there. I don't want any of you to sit up here and just leave 
and think that it's all just a joke, because it isn't. 

I've lost a home because I reported this. I've lost 
my job. I've lost raises. I've been served with adverse 
action. 

I have -- this is the only job in my entire history 
— and I'm 41 years old -- where I have had to have an attorney 
that I'm paying for on a monthly basis to secure my job. 

I went ahead, and I was fired for reasons that were 
so petty to cover their asses, okay? And you don't want to hear 
any of this because you've never heard any four-letter words. 



110 

I 

I live — and it's my opinion that the Department of 

2 

Corrections is one of the most corrupt departments and employers 
3 

that I have ever, ever worked with. It's the biggest example of 

4 ij 

organized crime that I have ever lived through. 

I've heard promises last time when I had adverse 
6 

action that my case would be heard in nine months . A year and a 

7 

half later, my case still hadn't been heard. 
8 

I won my case. And I want every one of you here to 

9 

know that I'm a fighter. And you will not get me down, no 

10 

matter what you do . 
II 

And I take pride in my work. And the reason, bottom 

line, that I received adverse action, that I was raped, was 

13 

because I reported a lot of — a lot of problems that we have in 

14 

the Department . 

15 

You say that people don't sleep with people for 



16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



favors. Well, they do, okay? 

MR. GOMEZ: I didn't say that. 

MS. VEGA: You say that you can't buy people off, 
well it's happening everyday. 

I reported embezzlement. There was a nurse that was 

having sexual contact with one of the inmates that was HIV 

II 

positive. For six months I reported this. Nothing was done 

until she was six months pregnant; then she was walked off. 

I reported a man who was fondling me. They 

investigated. They found out that there was seven other women, 

and nothing was done to this man. During the course that this 

was happening to me, I found that he was picked up a total of 



1 
: 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



111 
ithree times for having sexual contact with his twelve year old 
daughter. 

Now, we have inmates in our prison system who are 
locked up for having the same thing, for sexually having 
misconduct with children. And this MTA is making $70,000 a 
year, being covered by our Medical Department. 

The typical cover-up, myself, I was raped. He took 
pride in telling me he set me up. Seven other women testified. 
He has been picked up three times, four times, for having sexual 
misconduct with his own daughter and other children. 

I went to Mr. Borg. I went to every administrator 
that I have worked under within the last eight years . And they 
told me no, there's nothing, because he has not been served. He 
hasn't served one day. "We can't do anything, Ms. Vega. I'm 
really sorry. " 

This is pathetic. It's sad that I worked my ass off. 
I'm the oldest out of seven, and I worked three jobs to go to 
school so that I could have a good job and take pride in working 
for the state. And I've lost everything. 

And that these people, these boys that we all work 
for, are still living there in their beautiful homes, secure 
jobs . 

Something has got to be done. I'm tired of just 
having promises and lip service. 

And you're going to hear me out, and I'm not done 
yet . 

I had to pay to get an attorney to win my case for 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



112 

something that I hadn't done, because there was a lot of medical 
malpractice, because there were wrongful deaths that I was 
present for. I saw inmates die because our medical staff didn't 
want to help them. I received adverse action because I gave CPR 
to an inmate because no other medical staff member wanted to 
touch him because, number one, he was Black, and he may have 
AIDS. 

I saw my doctor with the defibrillators give this man 
third degree burns about his chest. When we arrived at the 
hospital, the emergency room doctor asked me how this man had 
been electrocuted. 

Imagine working for a medical department that you ' re 
ashamed of . 

And during this course, when this man who had fondled 
his daughter and other children, and had seven other women, 
still working there, okay? Is getting away with all of this. 
Has the audacity to refer to me as the whore of the Department. 
I was labeled the whore of the Department. I was the one that 

was supposedly, quote, according to Mr. MTA, I was fucking 

i 

inmates in the darkroom. 

I went through an investigation that Ms . Crawford 
"went down and investigated us on. And she said that I was doing 
a good job because I was the only x-ray tech who was running two 
departments by herself. I replaced seven people. 

When I went in, there were x-rays that had not been 
read. Imagine the liability. X-rays for nine months that had 
not been interpreted by a radiologist. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



113 

When I went there, there were x-rays this high in the 
darkroom, that's probably half the size of this room, that I 
personally took to the radiologist for interpretation. There 
were tuberculosis cases. There was a case where a man had an 
ulcer that was the size of a quarter that had been paroled and 
had not been told that he had this problem. 

And yet, I was the whore. I was labeled the whore of 
the Department. And I was the one that was being made fun of 
because I had reported this man, and the boys' club didn't like 
lit. 

I had an MTA throw stuff at my desk and call me a 
whore. "How can you do this? How can you say this about this 
poor man? " 

I went to my administrators. I went to my chief 
medical officer, Dr. Vu. He labeled me as an idiot. "You're 
just a stupid Mexican woman." 

And speaking of which, I don't have a guarantee, 
because you're Hispanic, and it made me sick to hear all these 
Hispanic people come in here and say this Hispanic man is going 
to help me. 

I don't give a damn about your color. What I want 
is, I want action. I don't care if you're Black. I don't care 
if you're White. I don't care if you're Hispanic. Something's 

got to be done about these people because they're insidious. 

ii 
It's a malignancy. 

And all of you better damn well listen. 

And then, when they couldn't — when none of this 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 



114 
worked out — I've been retarded; I've been a whore. Keep in 
mind that I've been raped during this period — our chief 
medical officer wanted to reflect a really great budget for the 
year. The equipment that I was working with was 40 years old. 
Our repairman was found sleeping with his trousers undone, 
completely drunk, working on our equipment. 

I used the same equipment because I was being 
threatened with adverse action. "You get your ass back in 
there, or I'm going to serve you with adverse action." This is 
,the language that I put up with from my chief medical officer. 
"You're a stupid woman. Get in there, or I'm going to fire 
you." And I wanted my job because it's important, otherwise I 
wouldn't be here today. 

I used the machine. The machine blew up in my face. 
As a result, I now have permanent heart damage. I have a 
detached retina. I have back problems. I have TMJ because my 
face landed up against the wall. 

But the budget reflected really well, and he was 
promoted . 

During this time, I was wanting my raises, and I was 
denied every raise. I went to the administrator. I went to 
Wilcox. I went to Mr. Miller. "Mr. Miller, how can this be? 
I'm the only woman running two departments. I'm running my ass 



off, doing the best that I can do for you. This man hates me." 

25 

And I was told that he's Vietnamese, therefore in his 
26 ij 

culture it's okay to treat women like dirt. 
27 

In my culture, and I'm Hispanic, if you do my wife -- 
28 |! 



115 
if I had a wife, if I were a male, and you treated my wife like 
that, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to come in just 
beat the holy hell out of you. 

But there's a double standard there, isn't there? 
It was all right for this man to treat me like shit. It was all 
right for me to lose my home. It was all right for me to be 
raped. It was all right for me to be treated like dirt. 

And after all of this, when they couldn't prove that 
|l was fucking men in the darkroom, then all of a sudden, let's 
see what we can talk about. 

During my State Personnel Board hearing, it was 

testified by staff members that I am now a lesbian. I'm the 
13 

lesbian dyke. Here I am. I'm the token dyke. 

14 

Sexual harassment, what more do you need? Why don't 
15 

you fire these people? Why isn't something done? If I'm not a 
16 

whore, then I'm a lesbian dyke. 

17 

Why is it acceptable behavior for supervising nurses, 
18 

why is it acceptable behavior for my chief medical officer, to 

19 

refer to me as a lesbian dyke or a whore, or just a lazy, stupid 

20 

Mexican, and get away with it? 



l 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 



12 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 



It's not, and it shouldn't be, 'cause I have the 
right here. I should be able to work in a safe and happy 
environment. But I wasn't given that. 

So, I was out of the Department. I borrowed money. 
I lost my home. I was out without any employment for the 
longest time. My family helped me. 

I won my case. I supposed to be reinstated. I 



10 

11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



116 
thought that everything was going to be rectified. I thought 
everything's going to be fine now. I won. These people will 
understand. 

Let's top the cake with a little bit of icing here, 
okay? I contacted this man's office. I told him that I was 
supposed to be reinstated as of January. To date, I haven't 
received one paycheck. I called CRC. They promised me that my 



back pay is in the mail. Those are the lines that I used to 
use, my family, when we were poor and didn't have any money: 



the check's in the mail. I never expected that from the state. 
"Your check's in the mail, Ms. Vega. Everything's going to be 
fine. You've been reinstated." 

When I was reinstated, everybody, from the 
administrator on down, said, "We didn't expect you back here. 
We don't want you back here. We've hired another person in your 
place . " 

That's fine. I understand, because we have inmates 
that need x-rays. They're entitled to proper medical care, and 
that is very important for me. 

I take pride in my work. I report everything that I 
feel is a safety hazard. I collimate. I use lead shielding. I 
use the fastest time exposure that I can. If I see something 
wrong with an x-ray, because I've been in x-ray for 23 years, I 
bring it to the attention of the doctor. 

I'm not obligated to do all these things, but I did 
it because I give a damn, because I take pride, because I wanted 
to make a difference, because I was proud of working for the 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



117 
Department. 

So, I was reinstated. They didn't have a position, 
and they hired a woman who was illegally hired. In my job 
description, it mandates that you be a certified radiological 
tech. They hired a woman who is limited license. 

This is very important. This woman has a permit. 
Not a license, but a permit, for chest. She's gone to school a 
total of nine months, compared to my four years. Anybody's four 
years if you're certified. She has a permit to do 
muscular-skeletal. She has a permit to do extremities. 

This woman, with full knowledge of everybody at CRC 
is aware of this, has been taking x-rays of inmates' mandibles, 
or series — skull series, anything to do with the head, 
^illegally. Each one of those 60 inmates has a very good lawsuit 
against the Department of Corrections, against the x-ray tech, 
against its chief medical officer. 

I reported this, and nobody — nobody seems to give a 
damn about it. Nobody cares. 

This is important to me. With my own money, I called 
Sacramento to our licensing board here. I spoke to 
Mr. Zemitis who was going to take care of this problem. She is 
still there. So, I'm going back. 

They gave me the 3-11 shift. There wasn't any other 
x-ray tech anywhere in the Department of Corrections that works 
3-11 shift, or is assigned to work Saturday and Sunday. That 
was my assignment. My days off are Thursday and Friday. I was 
to work every weekend. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 



24 

25 
26 
27 
28 



118 

Consequently, I received adverse action because 
during the time that I was stressed out because of all of this 
that had happened to me, and it's understandable — I don't 
think that any of you sitting here could have put up with what I 
have — I went out on stress in April of '89 because I couldn't 
take it anymore. I was out for a month, and when I returned 
back to work, I had letter after letter from each doctor that I 
had seen returning me back to work with no restrictions. 

Finally I'm back to work. I need the money. I was 
really elated that I was going back to work. 

My chief medical officer, my associates, the warden, 
would not return me back to work. And for six months, from May 
until October, I went and I checked in, trying to go back to 
work. Those six months I lost out. 

This man's office is not authorizing the six months. 
CRC is not authorizing the six months. I did not receive any 
adverse action. I was there for five years, and received no 
adverse action; none whatsoever. I had letters of 
recommendation from Dr. Thornburn, my chief medical officer. 

Six months down the river, gone for nothing. I 
attempted to go back to work. Dr. Vu wouldn't let me go 
anywhere on the premises, so I lost the six months. 



months back. Nobody is giving me those six months because 
Dr. Vu and Mr. Wilcox would tell the person at the office, at 
the gate, not to let me in. Playing games, but yet, they're 
supposed to be held accountable. 



23 

Back to my reinstatement, okay? I wanted my six 



119 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



Who ' s watching them? Who is watching these men who 
are in charge of my job, who are my supervisors? Where the hell 
are these people who are supposed to be in this chair right 
here, overseeing all these other wardens and associate wardens? 
Why can they play their little games and get away with it? 

It shouldn't be happening but it is, and it's 
pathetic, and it's garbage. And something should really be 
done . 

And I'm — and I borrowed the money to fly up here 
today, because it's really important to me. Because all of you 
have to know that this isn't just a bunch of crap. We're not 
making this up. This is really happening. 

So, now I'm working Saturdays and Sundays. I 
received adverse action because I was working Saturdays and 
Sundays, because it was interfering with my normal job. 

The woman that replaced me is working somewhere else, 
moonlighting on Saturdays and Sundays. She doesn't possess the 
license, the minimum requirements. She's illegally x-raying 
inmates, who can turn around and sue each one of the people that 
is responsible for that. 

It's my responsibility to report that, and therefore 
I have. But she hasn't received any adverse action. 

So, I said, fine, Otila, you got your job back. 
Great. You're going to start working. You can start paying 
your parents back. 

I went back to work. A week after I went back to 
work, an inmate walked who was assigned to Ms. Martinez. During 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



120 
the time that I worked, I didn't have three inmate workers 
assigned to my department. She has three. One of her inmates 
showed up, "Here I am. I'm helping you." 

We're sitting. We do, maybe, two or three patients, 
and he informs me that Ms. Martinez — and I believe it's 
over-familiarization -- has discussed in open forum with all 
three inmates that I had filed suit against the state, that I 
had large amounts of money that I had received as a settlement, 
and that I was going to file suit against even more people. 

He wanted to know where I live. He wanted to know 
what my husband did for a living. He had personal information 
that should have never, ever been discussed between an inmate 
and a — and a staff member about another staff member. 

I reported this. The woman hasn't received any 
adverse action. 

We went ahead and we worked throughout the course of 
the evening. I was supposed to leave at 11:00 o'clock in the 
evening. 

Before he left, he informed me that there were drugs 
being trafficked. The Department was being used for traffic — 
for trafficking of drugs. 

The following day was my day off. I tried to call. 
I couldn't get through to the 737 number because it's always 
busy. So I went ahead and I did whatever I had to do that day. 

The following morning, I called and I contacted the 
watch officer, and I told him that I felt there was a breach of 
security. This inmate is telling me that they're selling drugs, 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 



121 
and that they're selling syringes. 

During this time that I'm telling you, that I'm 
relating to you, the nurse told me that there were 100 syringes 
that were missing from our medical department. Syringes that 
are kept behind locks, okay? Inmates don't have keys to those 
locks. There's a door that they have to go through; there are 
cabinets that they have to go through; it's all secure. Yet, 
our inmates are — are getting drugs from our medical staff 
somehow, from the Department, maybe not the staff. 

So I'm reporting a breach of security. I contacted 
— because it's my job, I contacted the watch office. I 
contacted one nurse. I told them to keep it a secret until I 
returned the following day, because it was a breach of security, 
and that I would follow-up with the report. 

February 14th was Valentine's Day. It was my day 
off. It went to work on the 15th. I showed up. 

Now prior to this, my chief medical officer, Dr. 
Covington, told me that I would not have any inmate workers at 
night. When he walked in and he saw that this inmate was there, 
"You can't have any inmate workers." So I said, "Fine. I'll 



21 

work by myself." 



23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



He walks in, and they've got 25 inmates that are 
scheduled between, maybe, 6:00 o'clock and 8:00 o'clock. 

I proceeded to go ahead and do the first four 
patients. Each patient that I did had had a chest x-ray as 
recent as the day before. 

This woman who is running the x-ray department should 



3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



122 
know whether or not she's done this patient, just because the 
face looks familiar, or this patient. Four inmates had been 
exposed to radiation unnecessarily because she wasn't doing her 
job. 

I was livid. I really was. So I asked him, I said, 
"Tell me something. Why are you here? I want to know why 
you're here? Why are you scheduling these patients? Are you 
really -- you're selling drugs here? You're bringing these 
people down from the different units under the pretense that 
they're having x-rays done, and I'm x-raying them?" I don't — 
it really upset me, that I am x-raying patients unnecessarily 
because these people are playing games. 

So then he said, "I'm here because I want to show you 
something. Come into the darkroom with me." 

So we walk into the darkroom, and the darkroom has a 
regular door and then a sliding door. So I opened the door and 
the slider. The door is opened about like this. I walked into 
the far room, on the counter top, and I said, "I want — right 
now, I want to see all of their x-ray jackets. I want to see 
the reports, and I want to see which x-rays were taken of all of 
these inmates, every last one of them." 

I was facing him, as I'm facing you. The man walked 
towards me, and he said, "You're a fucking snitch. Ms. Martinez 
told us that you had reported that there — that the drugs are 
being sold here, and I'm going to shut your fucking mouth." 

And he preceded to reach forward, and when he reached 
forward to punch me, I moved, and he grabbed my lab jacket. And 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



123 
when he grabbed my lab jacket, I dropped to the floor, and I 
pivoted, and I ran because I was scared. 

What I'm telling you is that there's a possibility 
that there was a conspiracy to murder me, to shut me up once 
again. 

They took a report . The inmate was immediately 
transferred. I was sent home early because I was stressed out 
again. And in running through the door, I ran with my left side 
and hit my left hip. I thought that I had broken my left foot. 

There wasn't anybody there because, of course, they 
had put me on the evening shift, and of course, I didn't have 
any immediate supervisor because my supervisor was at home with 
his family. Saturday and Sunday, nobody else works. 

I didn't have a beeper, because nobody took the time 
to tell me that I'm supposed to wear a beeper. Nobody had even 
taken me through orientation. Just put me here to hide me. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Vega, we're going to break for 
five minutes, and then we'll resume. We'll give you a few more 
minutes after that, and then we will hear from Ms. Berger, and 
then conclude with comments. 

So, we will break for five minutes. 
[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The Committee will reconvene. 

Ms. Vega, you were testifying. 

MS. VEGA: I just wanted to say a few more things, if 
I could. 

The MTA that was responsible for everything that had 



124 

l 

happened to me, the majority of the stuff that happened to me, 
2 

has since been caught, allegedly in a sexual — sexual act while 
3 

he was at work with a female inmate, and has been released. 

4 

He's been fired. He's no longer there. 
5 

The supervising nurse, the Black supervising nurse 
6 

that told me that I should, quote again, if I were to fuck a 
7 

Black man, that I would be a straight woman; that I wouldn't be 
8 

a lesbian, is still working there. 
9 

Supervising nurses who testified at my State 
10 

Personnel Board hearing both stated that I was a lesbian dyke. 
11 

They made fun of my being a lesbian dyke. They made fun of my 
12 

being a whore. They're still there. 
13 

And I think if anybody should receive an adverse 

14 

action for being unprofessional, it should be my supervising 

15 

staff members. It should start from the chief medical officer 

16 

all the way down. 

17 

And it's very frustrating, when you're finally really 

18 

happy, and you go to college, and you want to get a responsible 

19 

job, something that's going to take you somewhere with the time. 

20 

And right now, I am a state employee, and I'm on industrial 

21 

('leave, yet I feel as if I'm unemployed. 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I contacted CRC, because I have blood pressure, 
because I have a heart problem, because I have a problem with 
ulcers. And to date, I don't even have health coverage. And 
that is disheartening to me. 

And I'm not coming here because I want everybody 
fired, but I just want you to be aware that these things are 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



125 
occurring, and that they should never occur again. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Why don't you have health coverage? 

MS. VEGA: Because I haven't — interestingly enough, 
when I contacted CRC last week, and I worked at the California 
Rehabilitation Center in Norco, I was told that I had not 
officially been reinstated. Therefore, if I have not been 
officially reinstated, they were saying in essence to me that 
they have allowed a private citizen on prison grounds who was 
assaulted with every effort to — to kill me. And that's why I 
don't have any health benefits, because I have not been 
reinstated officially. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What does it take to make it 
official, other than the finding of the court? 

MS. VEGA: The court finding was sent out in January, 
and I was supposed to have been fully reinstated to my old 
position. 

And I thought when I reported on the 28th, that I was 
back to work. And I was not allowed to return back to work 
until the 10th. 

And when I went on the 10th, and I did my patient 
load, I felt that I was reinstated. But I was told by the 
Personnel Department that I have not been officially reinstated. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The 10th of which month? 

MS. VEGA: February. 

I 

Yesterday I called, because I needed money. They 
told me that the check was in the mail still, you know, and that 
I still haven't been reinstated. I have no — no health 



4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



126 

I 

benefits as of date today. 

It's just really sad that you get somebody — and I 

am good at what I do, and I take pride. And as I mentioned 

before, I'm the oldest out of seven, and we didn't have 

anything. And I worked really hard. And it's sad that you get 

people who really want these jobs, and they're really gung-ho, 

and for some unknown reason, because you people are unaware of 

what's happening, we're outcasts, and we're trouble-makers, and 

we ' re getting adverse actions . 

I hadn't received adverse action for five years. 
|i 
I've been there eight years. I never had received any adverse 

action at all. I haven't had any problems until this man 

touched my breasts in the darkroom, and the nursing supervisor 

informed me that it as okay for him to do because, after all, he 

does it to everyone. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Vega, I want you to know that 

we on this Committee have heard more years, over a period of 

time, more years of testimony as far as the Department of 

I 

Corrections than we choose to recount. 

.1 

We have in the past rejected appointees over 
harassment cases. 

The issue before us here is Mr. Gomez's 
qualifications . 

Your case histories are very, very serious, and I 
think it's something that we have to hear. I wish all the 
Members of the Legislature could hear what you have to say, 
because it just, frankly, reinforces what we know to be a 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
->-> 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 



127 
terrible situation that is extant at the Department. 

However, of all the people that I have heard — we've 
heard numbers of them, probably more in Corrections than any 
other area -- after hearing the testimony, and we still have 
another witness to hear, the one who's actually evidenced the 
most sensitivity in this area that something has to be done — 
and I'm not saying he's made every correct decision, because I'm 
sure he hasn't -- is Mr. Gomez. 

MS. VEGA: I contacted Mr. Gomez's office, and I 
haven't received a letter. He's had three letters from my 
attorney asking for my money, asking me to be reinstated. I 
still haven't received any letters from his office. I haven't 
received any phone calls, and that's why — I'm here because I 
need money. I'm here because I want my job back. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We understand that. 

MS. VEGA: I want a good job, a good environment to 
work in. And I'm here because, if he is going to be assigned to 
this job, then he has to be made aware of what's happening. 

I don ' t know whether he ' s good or not . I don ' t know 
anything about this man. 

If he takes the job and he wants it, and everybody is 
saying that he's taking a drop of $30,000. You know what? 
$30,000 is more than I've ever made with the Department of 
Corrections. Working like a dog for less than what he's given 
up. To him, it's small change, $30,000? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: No, I don't think he said it's 
small change, no. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



128 
SENATOR PETRIS: You said you aren't here to get 
people fired, but it seems to me if these things have happened, 
and I have no reason to believe they haven't, there ought to be 
an awful lot of people getting fired. That whole damn medical 
staff ought to be fired, starting with the medical officer, if 
that ' s the way they are conducting themselves . 

MS. VEGA: I think we need — 

j 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think we — 

I 

MS. VEGA: — to clean the department. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Pardon me? 

MS. VEGA: I believe that you should clean out our 
medical department. Unfortunately, and it's my opinion, we have 
a — a nursing supervisor who has been there for years and years 
and years. And she is the one who is running the department. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is she the one who told you that's 
part of your job? 

MS. VEGA: Yes, and she's also the one that — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it part of her job? 

MS. VEGA: Pardon? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is it part of her job, too? 

MS. VEGA: I don't — I don't know whether — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do they treat her the same way? 

MS. VEGA: I don't know. I don't know if she's been 
fondled. I don't know if she's being sexually harassed. I 
don't know. I haven't really discussed it with her. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, it's interesting that a woman 
in the same shop that you're in would make a statement like 



129 

l 

that. I find that most — 



3 

4 

5 

you 

6 



MS. VEGA: I think — 

SENATOR PETRIS: — distressing. 

MS. VEGA: — it's really sad. Uh-huh, I agree with 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do you have anything further? 

7 

MS. VEGA: I want to thank all of you for hearing me 

8 

out. 

9 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you for coming. It's some 
10 

testimony that we and Mr. Gomez should hear. 
II 

MS. VEGA: Thank you. 
12 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I have one last witness, and that 
13 

is Ms. Anita Berger. 
14 

Mr. Gomez, you can respond in your conclusion, after 
15 

Ms. Berger. 

16 

MS. BERGER: Thank you for having me here, and I'm 

17 

sure you all want to go home. I missed my plane. 

18 

But she said she has not had any — any adverse 
19 

action. 
20 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Please identify yourself. 
21 

MS. BERGER: Anita Berger. 
22 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Do you have a position, or did 
23 

you have a position? 

24 

MS. BERGER: No, I've been fired since 1989. 

25 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: From the Department of 
26 

Corrections, and what was your position there? 
27 

MS. BERGER: X-ray tech II, only at CIM. 
28 



9 
10 
11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



130 

And I guess I started in 1980 or 1981. I have to 
look it up. I'm trying to forget that place. 

But in 1983 — yeah, it was in 1980, because in 1983, 
I did bring some complaints to Mr. Borg. 

Now, you're talking about sexual harassment. I 
didn't have sexual harassment, but it was a different type of 
harassment. 

And when I brought it to Mr. Borg, the next thing I 
know, Dr. Sigurdson, who was the chief medical officer, was 
having me walked out for paranoid disorder. So, took me a year 
to get back. 

Now, I was also working at Riverside General. When I 
went over there, I told the supervisor, I said, "Look what they 
did." She said, "Oh, good." Walked me over to the calendar. 
She said, "Can you work this, this, this?" I worked the whole 
year. 

So, I'm a responsible person, but I -- the Department 
of Corrections said I'm mentally ill, okay, because I brought 
these problems forth. 

When — when the girls were talking about Folsom, and 
Borg there, I said, oh, hey, that goes way back. A woman 
complains, and this is what he does; okay? 

In 1984, I came back, and everything I complained 
about came true. The whole — like Otila said about her 
department, it was in disarray, mine was in disarray. There 
were undeveloped films for about ten months that had never even 
been developed. They were green in the boxes. And I was told 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



131 
to stamp the reports negative. I said, "Stamp them negative? 
They haven't even been read. They haven't even been developed." 

So, I called Radiologic Health, because I had been 
instructed you will do as you are told by Mr. Jim Green, the 
Health Services administrator. 

So, I went ahead and called Radiologic Health, told 
them what was happening. 

To make a long story short, there was an 

ii 

investigation, and my co-worker was — the senior tech — was 

terminated. 

I 

So, the next year, I'm working all by myself, 
cleaning up the mess. I don't mean the back room where they 
were all thrown, but I'm cleaning up the department. And I 
didn't just work eight hours. I worked sixteen hours. I was 
there 'til after 12:00. My house looked a mess because I was 
cleaning that place up, and people said, "You are crazy for 
doing this . " 

Nobody told me to go home. I'm working eight hours 
past my time and not getting overpay [sic] — overtime. I may 
have gotten two hours . 

But Jim Green and the -- you're talking about a 
medical staff. Jim Green and his drinking crowd from the 
Department, which would take two and a half hour lunch hours — 
at 4:00 o'clock they went out and left again, 'cause they had to 
go for their — for their drinking meetings . And several things 
happened to some of the people in that crowd because they'd been 
drinking. We won't go into that. But it was well-known that he 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



132 
had the drinking crowd. 

I cleaned this department up. And in the meantime, 
Otila got a job — was over working at CRC. She came over to 
get some films, and then I find out — and also, after I had the 
department all cleaned up after a year, they didn't give me the 
senior position, which was open. They said I couldn't have it. 
And they interviewed everyone, and then finally they said — I 
said, "You know, this isn't fair, 'cause you terminated me and I 
couldn't get on the list." 

But I went ahead and played their game. And after 
they -- after they were terminate -- I was terminated, like I 
say, after I cleaned up the department, Jim Green calls her over 
and offers her the senior position. She asked why they weren't 
giving it to me. 

And then I find out that he's bad mouthing me. He — 
she wasn't even a state employee, and during the interview in 
'83, when she interviewed for my job, and also for the senior 
position, Jim Green says, "She's -- she's crazy. She's nutso." 

Now, in 1983, I found out that during the interview, 
and while I was terminated and trying to get my job back, at the 
end of the interview, Jim Green told her there was more to it. 
She did something with an inmate. 

And I'm not going to go into a big spiel, because I 
have a history of adverse action in — you know, I was a target. 
And just like she said, Nancy Robertson, I had vicious nurses in 
the department, too. They wanted to get along and be in the 
favor of the men, so it was -- it was game. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
j") 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



133 

And Jim Green had a lot of fun out of antagonizing 
me. And one time I walked into his office. I went to get some 
mail, and I heard them all laughing about me and what they were 
going to do. And I got a formal reprimand. They gave me a 
formal reprimand on a secret file. Things that I didn't even 
know about. And when I tried to answer it, they said it didn't 
matter. But I got the formal reprimand. 

The -- Judge Showers, who's now dead, was at my 
hearing, and he said this is a whistle blowing. This is a 
whistle blowing case. 

Okay, then I get another adverse action from Nurse 
Shalone on a Post Office incident. 

Now, I want to ask all of you, how would you feel for 
— Mr. Gomez? How would you feel for a little seven year old 
child to come into the prison hospital, spend the day with 
mommy? And there is maximum security inmates there. They're 
carried in -- they're walking through in chains, and they're 
talking filthy talk. And mommy -- he got to spend the day with 
mommy, and do you know why? Because he did so well at 
testifying against Anita Berger. 

I met Nurse Shalone at the Post Office, and when I 
saw her, I thought, "Oh, my God." What I really thought was, 
"Oh, s-h, " you know? And I was going, that's her. So, I was 
going to go on, but then I saw she left. And the only parking 
place right there, otherwise I'd have to go where she was, the 
handicapped parking. I never have parked in the handicapped 
parking, but I ran -- I went in there and I parked. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



134 

And I went into the -- I jumped out to go in there, 
and somebody grabbed the door behind me. It was Nurse Shalone. 
She made some personable -- personal remarks. 

Now, she, Jim Green, and these nurses were telling 
new employees that I was crazy, and I was nutso, and I was 
schizo. 

So, she made a personal remark to me about my head 
problem, and I just looked at her. I said, "Hey." And I 
couldn't sleep, either, because of the harassment they gave me. 
And a couple of times I had to call in about that, because I 
said I haven't had any sleep all night. 

And she said, "I sleep well." And I just looked 
at her, and I said, "I don't drink." And I mailed my letter. I 
came out, and she's standing out there with her little boy, 
yelling, "You. I'm going to call this — I'm going to call the 
— I'm going to call my lawyer. Yeah, I'm going to sue you." 

And I just opened my door and looked at her, I said, 
"Didn't you and Ms. Buston refuse — didn't you and Buston 
refuse a breathalyzer test?" 'Cause on their two and a half 
hour lunch hours, they got into an accident. 

And the word was all over the place that the Chino 
Police Department said they refused a breathalyzer test. And I 
understand, and Warden -- and Thurman was going to get after it. 
But somehow, somebody told him to stop it. 

So, he was never — they were never given any action 
against it, but I was given adverse action because I put in for 
the senior position, and the next thing I hear is that Nurse -- 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2X 



135 
I was told to report for an investigative inquiry into 
allegations of — I became physical with Nurse Shalone. And I 
said, "Bull shit. " 

So, the union rep called the chief medical officer, 
Thorburn, I think her name was at that time. Anyways, he called 
her, and said, "What's the matter?" And they said Ms. Shalone 
had made a police report. There's a police report. 

I called the police station. They said there is no 
police report. I went over there. They said no, there's no 
police report. I says, well, and then I'm supposed to go for an 
investigative inquiry. 

The bottom line was, Nurse Shalone said — she had 
written it up that I had caused this big scene at the Post 
Office. 

Is anyone listening to me, or is everyone talking? 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We're listening. 

MS. BERGER: Everybody's talking to somebody. Am I 
just talking to you? 

MR. GOMEZ: I think you're talking to everybody. 

MS. BERGER: Well, so, anyways, I got a 30-working 
days suspension out of that. And I could say was, "Hey, I got a 
vacation out of that dump." I got a 30-days away from that 
place, and someplace else was glad to have me for the thirty 
days . 

But I came back because I always thought, hey, 
there's somebody's going to listen to what's going on here. 
Nobody every did. 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



136 

The end result was, I was — I was fired by lies from 
Mr. Thurman, by -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let me ask a question. 

MS. BERGER: — by set-ups, and by the whole works. 

SENATOR PETRIS: During all this time that you're 
describing, did you ever have any meetings with Mr. Gomez to 
complain about all this stuff? 

MS. BERGER: No. He was the deputy warden, no. No, 
you have to go through the chain of command. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand that. Did he — 

MS. BERGER: I tell you who I did call, and I called 
several times, was Mr. Denninger, because he's the one that 
signs the adverse action. And when I got the recommendation — 

SENATOR PETRIS: What was his position? 

MS. BERGER: He signed — he — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was he a deputy — 

MR. GOMEZ: He was Deputy Director of Institutions at 

Ij 

that time. 

MS. BERGER: Yeah. His name is on all the adverse 
action. 

When I got this report that -- and I had to go 
through an investigative inquiry, they said there was a police 
report. There was never a police report. In fact, I bugged the 
Chino P.D. so much that the lieutenant said, "Give me that." 

Here's a copy of the police report. And the 
lieutenant said — wrote, "NRD", and circled it, meaning No 
Report Desired. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



137 

The Chino Police — the policeman that took the 
report -- two days after Shalone saw me at the Post Office, she 
went over to -- she went to see Jim Green, or told him about it. 
And they wrote a letter that, I mean, this crazy woman was at 
the Post Office, that there was a -- that there was a big scene. 
People from inside the Post Office came, and it drew a crowd. 
And I was screaming at her that she drinks . And I shouldered 
her, wouldn't let her in the Post Office, wouldn't let her out. 

The only time I saw her was at the door. 

So, it was, you know, just a big story, but it didn't 
"matter, because it was upheld. 

I even took it outside to Superior Court. I took it 
'all the way to the State Supreme Court. I took it to the 
Appellate Court, and I lost. Because the state system is — 
when he was talking about management, what about us rank and 
|file? And what about Otila? 

In the whole system, there — the — it isn't an 
x-ray tech that is the supervisor of the department. It's 
either an MTA; it ' s a nurse; it's anybody down the hall. And I 
don't mean just in CDC. This goes on in the state hospitals. 
Nobody knows. They're doing our evaluations, and they don't 
even know what they're doing, other than you either fit in; we 
either like you, or we don't like you. I mean, that's the ship- 
shoddiest dump. 

I'm going to have to watch it, too, that I don't, you 
know, get over reactive here. I mean, this -- that place is a 
dump. That is the worst place I've ever worked in. 



4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



138 

And when people say I'm crazy, I say, "Yeah, you 
know, I was. I kept going back." I kept going back. That's 
where I was crazy, because nothing evt.r changed. 

Anything -- and in fact, they enjoy doing it to you. 
When they — when they were -- when they had that secret file, I 
was putting some mail outside of Jim Green's office, and quite a 
few of the people who were — who had signed those secret files, 
which were lies or twisted facts, were in there laughing. And I 
just — I stood in front of his door, and then they looked up. 
And Jim Green saw me, and he gave me a big grin. And I told to 
myself, you bastard, you know? 

But it didn't matter, because I'm the one has rude 
and disrespectful treatment of other employees . 

Now, what I questioned in the Director's rules, which 
they use against you. It didn't matter how good a job you do, 
the Director's rules — and I called Mr. Denninger about this. 
I called Showers. I called several people in the state. I 
finally wrote a letter to Senator Cranston. He never answered 
it. 

And then when I called and said, "All right, why 
aren't you answering this?" They said, "Well, take it to your 
state Senator. " 

I've gone into his office. You know, I've talked -- 
I've talked once to you, but I've gone in there. I've gone to 
Ayala ' s office, and nobody cares. I said, well, forget it. 

But what I question was, no — there are no 
guidelines to the Director's rules which would infringe on our 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



139 
civil rights and our freedom of speech. 

I would say, even if it was true that I had said 
those things, don't I have a right, even at the Post Office, 
even if it was true. It was 5:30. I was off work. Shalone 
confronted me. I got the adverse action. 

To me, that place is -- not only is it a dump, but 
you got crazy people working there. And what I was going — I 
was going to a doctor because I wanted to know — it was almost 
like, hey, why don't you start an Alanon group for employees who 
have to -- or rank and file who have to put up with abusive or 
what I consider alcoholic supervisors? Why not start one? 

And all I'm doing is trying to cope with them. And 
finally I thought -- I knew I was on my way out. 

Now, what I'm really concerned about here — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We'll have to give you just a 
couple more minutes. 

MS. BERGER: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We do have to wind up. 

MS. BERGER: Okay. 

Dr. Sigurdson, the chief medical officer — and I'm 
sure you're fully aware of that, that he was -- he had umpteen 
-- a whole bunch of complaints where he was molesting the 
inmates . 

Now, when you have a Harold Anderson, you know, 
charged and put in this — you know, when you've got these 
charges against him, I'm saying, and a lot of people are saying, 
what can -- how can you do that to this man when Dr. Sigurdson 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



140 
was allowed to resign. And the only reason he even resigned was 
because I went to Mr. Thurman and told him that people are 
pretty — pretty upset because he's still around here. And Dr. 
— and Thurman told me, "Well, we're having a problem pinning 
him down." I said, "You had no problem pinning me down and 
walking me out of here and doing all you did. " 

So, Thurman said, "Give — come into my office. Make 

i 

ian appointment . " 

I was in there by 10:00 o'clock. And I found out — 
anyways, we had a discussion. I said, "You know, all the rotten 
things that you've done to me, I haven't thrown it up in your 
face." And Thurman said, "Yeah, we appreciate that." 

But as I was — as the meeting was over, he assured 
me that Mr. — that Dr. Sigurdson was going to be out that day. 
And I — and I stopped, and I said, "I want to tell you 
something." It was on a Friday. I said, "I'll come into work 
Monday, and that man is still here, I drive through those gates 
right to the newspapers . " 

I didn't care if Thurman fired me then or walked me 
out, because it was inevitable. They were so rotten to me, it 
was just a matter of time. 

And this man — the allegations were, and many of 
them, because I fed all the information into Presley's office, 
and you can read that in one of these letters. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: You keep pointing at me . I'm not 
Senator Presley. 

MS. BERGER: You're Beverly? 



141 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



Where is Presley? 



[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: He's not on the Committee. 

MS. BERGER: You know something? You know, when he 
walked in, I thought, God, he looked different. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Presley's getting older. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. 

MS. BERGER: Okay, okay, okay. We had our laugh, you 
know, and it's good. I laugh, too. It's good to loosen up. 

But, you know, why is that this man, who's molesting 
the inmates, and everybody knows it. The doctors know it. And, 
you know, it's going to come out in my lawsuit. 

The man was stripping the inmates of their clothes 
and checking -- and doing a psych evaluation on their penis. 

Okay, I was the one that fed the information into 
Presley's office, and that's how he eventually lost his license. 
Because I also — and everybody gave me the information, 
including the doctors, because they were afraid of losing their 
job. And I figured, hey, I'm going anyways. And I did; I was 
gone. 

Now, you know, why do that to Anderson? I mean, this 
was really crappy. 

And as far as any — as far as the word goes, hey, he 
was set up for that rape, too. I mean, he's doing the same 
thing that a lot of our Presidential candidates are doing. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



142 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Are alleged to be doing. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. BERGER: Are alleged, okay? 

I mean, there's more prostitutes out there that are 
working besides working the streets. 

And maybe I'm talking out of turn, but — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: We appreciated your testimony, 
Ms. Berger. We want to give Mr. Gomez a chance to respond to 
the last witness who testified. 

MS. BERGER: We're friends, but I don't want to work 
for your crummy Department . 

But maybe he can answer about — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I'm sure he will address your 
points and Ms. Vega's points as well, and an overall conclusion. 

MS. BERGER: See, what I came in here for, I came in 
here to attack him. I don't mean sexually or physically, but I 
came in to attack him as to — he wrote me this letter. In 
fact, I called his office, and I said, "I don't want that air 
head." I said, "You tell ," I told his secretary, I says, "You 
tell that air head never to write me a letter like that again. " 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI : This is the most memorable hearing 
in eleven years of Rules Committee hearings. I think we now 
have the most memorable one. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Mr. Gomez, you get to conclude. 

Thank you, Ms. Berger. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 

15 
16 

17 

18 

19 

20 ; 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



143 

MS. BERGER: Okay. 

MR. GOMEZ: I wish Ms. Berger well. 

I -- regarding Ms. Vega, she had some serious issues 
that I feel I need to address. 

Ms . Vega was — was terminated from the Department in 
October of "89. She appealed that termination, and the State 
Personnel Board, on January 21st, 1992, withdrew that dismissal 
and modified it to an 18-month suspension. 

At that point in time, she's asked to reinstate with 
the Department . 

When she makes this — when she makes the statements 
that the other technician had a limited license, she made that 
statement also in a letter to me through her attorney, and we 
have investigated that. She's right on that charge. And that 
individual no longer is performing those duties, and her point 
is 100 percent correct. 

On the issue of back pay — 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I ask a question on that? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, you may. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How can a person like that, with all 

the competition that we hear about, and the clamor for work, how 

i 

does she get in there in the first place if she doesn't even 
have the qualifications? She's putting people's lives at risk 
from overdose of radiation, and so on and so forth. 

MR. GOMEZ: Somebody clearly made a mistake. I — I 
just have found out the information this morning, but clearly, 
somebody allowed her with a limited license, and from the 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



144 
information I have, she has a limited license. She doesn't have 
the ability to do cranials, like Ms. Vega testified to. That 
she had — that she should not have been performing those 
duties . 

I will check into that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to know who made the 
mistake. It seems like a very serious one, not just some 
clerical error or oversight. 

MR. GOMEZ: I agree with you. 

I can tell you, recruiting medical personnel in the 
Department of Corrections has not been easy. It is very 
difficult to retain medical personnel because of pay and working 
conditions both. 

On Ms. Vega's issue on back pay, I believe she's 
right on the majority of her issue. We — I am led to believe 
by my staff that a check has been issued for back pay to July 1 
of 1991 forward, which is about, I believe, seven months of back 
pay. 

There is a difference of agreement on two other 
months of back pay which has not been issued, and that's 
currently being worked on. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that in the mail? I mean, is 
that check en route? 

MR. GOMEZ: Let me turn to my staff who gave me the 
information. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Ms. Vega, do you want to come 
forward on this one point only. 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



145 

MR. GOMEZ: She has it coming. I was told that it 
is, that they had processed that pay check, but they have not. 
She has it coming. 

MS. VEGA: What I would like to know — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Sounds like another delay to me. 

MS. VEGA: What I'm interested in also in the six 
months, from the time that I returned to work and was allowed to 
return to work because they just didn't want me there. 

MR. GOMEZ: I think there's — that's a different — 
I'll get to that issue, but I think it ' s a different issue. 

And the attorneys, and according to what we see in 
the State Personnel Board settlement, she does have a back pay 
going back to the point in which she had rights to come back to 
the job. That would start the day after 18 months. So, if you 
were off for two and a half years, and then the Personnel Board 
says 18-month suspension, then on the 18th month and first day, 
at that point in time, she's entitled, I believe, to back pay. 

And that's -- we'll check that. 

Her attorney wrote me, and she did make a comment 
that I had not responded to one of her letters. 

By the way, she originally was terminated when I was 
in Santa Clara County. I was not in the Department at that 
time . 

Her issue regarding the responsiveness, we did 
respond to her attorney, and I'll show -- I'll see the letter at 
this point from Robert Thompson. He was her attorney. Mr. 
Thompson wrote me on February 19th, 1992 and asked for a series 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



146 
of things to happen in their concern. 

We wrote back March 20th, 1992, and responded to each 
issue. Since that point in time, I received another letter just 
two days -- March 23rd, received in our office on March 27th. 

But the issue of back pay, I believe that she is 
entitled to it. You have to put it in perspective. The State 
Personnel Board ruling was on January 21st of 1992. But we've 
taken longer than we should have, and we will expedite her check 
to her immediately on the back pay. 

On the issue of drug selling, first I've ever heard 
of it. I will check into that, and if need be, conduct an 
investigation. 

She also had her allegation regarding inmate assault. 
An investigation is being done on that allegation, the inmate 
assault that she talked about. The inmate was removed. Anytime 
there is an inmate assault allegation, we remove the inmate from 
the area so there's no retribution. We are investigating that 
assault. 

On the issue of health coverage -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 

On that, there's also the allegation that that was 
set up by an officer who apparently is still around and bragging 
about it. 

MR. GOMEZ: I didn't think she said an officer. 

MS. VEGA: The assault allegedly was set up by Ms. 
Martinez . 

MR. GOMEZ: We're investigating that, and we'll give 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



147 
you a copy — 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're aware of that? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes. If she authorizes it, we'll give 
you a copy of the investigation. I believe we can do that very 
routinely. 

I think that the issue of health coverage, the best 
information I have was that she returned to work on February 
10th, 1992. And she was placed on the shift she talked about at 
that point in time, which was a different shift when she was the 
3-11 shift that she spoke to. 

And she did not get AR-40. What AR-40 is, if you 
work with an inmate helper, you get a bonus of 10 percent, or an 
increase of 10 percent. The shift she went onto, she didn't get 
AR-40. 

Her attorney wrote to us in his letter and said we 
believe that she should get AR-40 because when she was 
previously an employee, she had AR-40. 

And on February 17th, she was placed back into that 
shift and provided AR-40 at that point in time. 

The inmate -- so, she came back on February 10th. 
The issue on the 15th is when she reported the incident to us 
regarding the inmate's -- the inmate assault. 

The issue of the rape, first time I've heard of that 
at all. It's not in any of the files. Nancy gave me the 
information yesterday that she would be testifying. The issue 
on the rape, I have no information whatsoever on, and would be 
more than happy to sit down with the employee and have staff 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

1? 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 



148 
take a look at that issue. But that is not something that's in 
any of the files that I have. And I'll have the personnel files 
that I had an opportunity to look at last night. 

MS. VEGA: I spent a total of a month being 
interrogated as a result of that -- that rape. In fact, when I 
was being interrogated, I was being made the criminal rather 
than the victim. 

MR. GOMEZ: Was it done at the local level? 

MS. VEGA: It was done at CRC . I requested that 
Sacramento investigate. 

MR. GOMEZ: I only had the files that were available 
to me last night that I went through. 

I can tell you, welcome back to the Department. 
Welcome back to her job, and the issue of the employee that was 
taking her place, we had — we went two years. We had to fill 
that job. You can't not let the job be not filled. 

MS. VEGA: Excuse me, but there are CRTs full 
diagnostic x-ray techs out on the street looking for a job. 

MR. GOMEZ: And we should have hired one. 

MS. VEGA: And the reason that she was hired was 
because there's nepotism there because her sister gave her the 
job. 

MR. GOMEZ: Well, I had not heard that. This is the 
first that you mentioned of it. 

And that's what I have to say about Ms. Vega. I will 
ensure that her check is issued tomorrow or the next day. 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I ask her a question? 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 



149 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Yes, Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I forgot to earlier. 

You heard Mr. Nova testify in support. Isn't it 
Nova, the President of the — 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Nava . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Nava. 

Did you bring any of this to his attention at any 
time? 

MS. VEGA: Pertaining to the rape and all the 
problems that I've had? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MS. VEGA: I didn't speak to him directly. I — the 
institution was made aware of it. The EOC was made aware of it. 
At one point I was a member of the Hispanic Association. They 
were made aware of it pretty much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did that association — 

MS. VEGA: They did nothing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — do anything about it? 

MS. VEGA: Nothing at all. 

ii 

SENATOR PETRIS: What about your employee 
organization? 

MS. VEGA: Nothing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did you ask them for help? 

MS. VEGA: Uh-huh. I asked for help from everyone, 
requested — 

SENATOR PETRIS: What reason did they give you for 
not doing anything? 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



150 

MS. VEGA: They didn't give me any reason at all. 
They just dropped out. 

In fact, I was also a member of CSEA, who was my 
union, and they dropped me. They refused to represent me. They 
wanted me to go ahead and resign. And I told them that I felt 
that this was adverse action that was just given to me to cover 
up. 

And it was attorney Kleinman, Anita was present, and 
he flat out refused to represent me. So, I had to go out and 
secure my own attorney, Robert Thompson. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Ms. Vega. 

MR. GOMEZ: In summary — 

MS. VEGA: Some of the letters that my attorney has 
sent — 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, I've seen the letters he's sent, and 
I have send some in response. 

MS. VEGA: All three of them? 

MR. GOMEZ: Yes, I have all three of them in the 
package. 

MS. VEGA: Thank you. 

There is one other thing. 

On this last letter, it states that I'm never to 
x-ray a female inmate or a female staff member unless I have a 
female staff member present. 

I'm the only female or the only x-ray tech who has 
ever received a letter like this. And I really take offense 
■when I'm a state employee, and I've worked as an x-ray tech for 



3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

27 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



151 
23 years in some of the better university centers, and I have to 
be supervised whenever I have a female staff member or a female 
inmate . 

I've never received any adverse action for sexual 
misconduct. 

MR. GOMEZ: I understand, and I have two other 
letters which I'll be happy to share with you. 

Our staff clarified that. They believe it was your 
request. 

MS. VEGA: It wasn't my request. 

MR. GOMEZ: There are two letters that have gone out 
since then I'll be happy to share with you. 

MS. VEGA: Well, I think that the reason they're 
doing that is because they're covering their behinds on it. 

I don't need somebody — in fact, it's against the 
law for me to have another individual in the room while I'm 
x-raying because of the amount of radiation exposure. 

MR. GOMEZ: There is some disagreement between you 
and the staff. 

MS. VEGA: But I would never do that because it's 
against the law to x-ray individuals. 

MR. GOMEZ: Let me summarize for the Committee. 

I have a tremendous challenge in front of me. I 
believe that I'm a hard working, dedicated individual who's 
going to approach this job with 110 percent. I believe I have 
the kind of caring, the kind of commitment, and the capability 
to lead this Department. 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



152 

These hearings are difficult. They're difficult on 
both Senate Rules, they're difficult on the individuals 
testifying, and they're difficult on the Department. And 
they're difficult on the Department because you see -- you see 
one picture here today. 

And if I leave you with nothing else, I want to leave 
you with a picture that there are some employees that are not 
happy. You've seen some of them. There are some employees that 
have problems, and you've seen some of those. 

But there ' re an awful lot of hard-working, good men 
and women in the Department of Corrections that I represent in 
addition to representing some of these other employees. And you 
need, regardless of what you do, to know there's a dedicated, 
hard-working group of people out there that are working hard 
every single day, 24 hours a day. 

We have problems. You've heard some of them today, 
and we have others. We have budget problems. We have pay 
problems. We have sexual harassment problems. We have respect 
of people problems. 

But there still are an awful lot of dedicated staff 
out there that are working, and I just want to ensure for the 
Committee that, although we're in need of change, we're in need 
of improvement, that I don't want the whole Department to be 
painted with a brush that deals with my confirmation or not 
being confirmed. 

I think I have the honesty and the integrity to 
handle this challenge. The reason I came back to the Department 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



153 
of Corrections is because I think it's the most challenging job 
in state government. The most challenging job in state 
government, and I think I have the capacity and capability to 
deal with that challenge. 

As I've said, the process itself, you need to know, 
I'm not a fan of the process. But what I am a fan of is Nancy 
Michel and Ken Hurdle. Regardless of what you do, they've 
treated me fairly, honestly, with integrity. They have called 
me and kept me apprised of every issue. And no matter what this 
Committee does, I owe a debt of gratitude to them, because 
they've been fair with me. And you can ask for no more. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Mr. Gomez. We 
appreciate your words. 

When the motion is made, I intend to vote for your 
confirmation, but you know, probably more than the Members of 
this Committee, that there are problems. 

I can't tell you how it amazes me that after I don't 
know how many years we've heard Corrections appointments, and it 
still seems that the appointment process to these people is 
their only opportunity to vent this real anger at the working 
conditions that they're forced to endure. In a state department 
that seems to be growing out of necessity, that this continues 
is — something must be done. 

You said last week at a press meet, if you had 
anything else that you were going to do, you wanted to reform 
the Department, and to make this change. So, we're going to 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



! 



154 
hold you to that. I was impressed that you said you wanted to 
make that your legacy. 

Much of what we have heard involves cases that 
occurred before you took over, and even when you took over, the 
Department is enormous. I don't know, I guess as far as numbers 
of people, I don't know if you're the largest, but you're one of 
the largest. 

MR. GOMEZ: We're twice as large as any other 
department . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: So, it is impossible for you to 
hear every one of these cases individually, but from the 
testimony, frankly, you've tried. 

And I know there are an enormous number of 
hard-working people in a very, very difficult job. One that 
nobody — jobs, ones that are as difficult as any in the State 
of California. 

But we just don't choose, the next time we hear a 
warden appointment, or whatever, to hear this litany of abuse 
one more time. 

So, we're counting on you. It's more than a prayer. 
We're going to use every avenue we have to help enforce cleaning 
up the Department of Corrections' problems. And we know that 
there are innumerable numbers of people who do their job and 
aren't party to this, but it ' s a real problem. And we intend to 
oversight and to supervise. 

And we think in you, there is a leader who can do 
something. At least that's how I feel. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 



155 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm concerned about retaliation. We 
went through this before in prior Folsom hearings. And it 
normally doesn't come from the top. It comes from the same good 
old boys that are creating the problems in the first place. 

So, I want to emphasize, I don't want to see any 
retaliation against any of these witnesses. 

MR. GOMEZ: I concur. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like you to put the word out, 
because if there is, I personally intend to haul every one of 
them into this Committee and give an accounting to us, in 
addition to having whatever other proper action is necessary. 

MR. GOMEZ: I would like to — in response to that — 

SENATOR PETRIS: And you talk about hard-working 
people, and I'd like to believe that the overwhelming majority 
are the way you describe, and I think they are. 

But the institution gets a bad name. You know, we've 



had a few bad apples in the Legislature, and we're all paying 

19 

the price now, very dearly, as a matter of fact. 



20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
2b 
27 
28 



So, I don't know what method you can use, but I think 
that people who are in that shop and are working with Ms . Vega 
or are her supervisors and so forth ought to be told tomorrow 
that they better not give her a bad time. 

I think she's a very dedicated worker, too, and 
should be included in that overall category. 

People have to know that when things get that bad, 
they should be able to blow the whistle. It takes enormous 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



156 
courage, as you pointed out two or three times, for a person to 
come here and publicly criticize the conditions that exist there 
and individuals, and I think they need to be protected. 

MR. GOMEZ: I understand. 

I FAXed Nancy a copy of the letter that I sent the 
day after Ms. Chacon testified. I think that was last 
Wednesday. And that was a fairly difficult testimony. I think 
we would all agree. And I FAXed a letter to Nancy that I sent 
that morning to the warden, asking him to meet with every 
sergeant, every lieutenant, and the captain, at that 
institution, and to make sure. And I sent Nancy a copy of that 
letter, just to know that I understand that that kind of thing 
can take place. 

And they have met with every warden, every sergeant, 
every lieutenant. 

That ' s not to say that Ms . Chacon is not without 
fault, because she is. She's a hard person to get along with. 
She doesn't treat other people with respect. 

But, we have an obligation as an employer to treat 
her with respect. 

That's not to say that Ms. Vega does not also have 
some problems. She was terminated from state service, and the 
State Personnel Board upheld that as an 18-month suspension. 
So, she also has an obligation on the other side of that coin 
for her to behave in an appropriate fashion when she goes back. 

And I will do exactly as you ask. I think it's 
appropriate . 



3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



13 

14 
15 
16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



157 

I don't think anyone that comes to this hearing to 
testify, either for or against, or with concerns, should have 
anything other than the walk back to their job tomorrow. This 
was their day to say what they wanted to say. 

That ' s how I feel . 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: I'm sorry, Ms. Berger, but at some 
point we have to bring it to a conclusion. We have more 
business . 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Just reminded me really of the confirmation hearings 
that we had for the warden out at Folsom back a few years ago, 
only I think even more serious. 

We've heard a lot of these ugly incidents, as we've 
heard. And you've committed yourself to stop them and not let 
them happen anymore. Because I think the testimony here was — 
I believe the testimony that these persons made here about their 
harassment and attacks. 

There's another part of the prison, I think, that we 
fail to get into here, and that is, what is the mission of our 
Corrections system? Are we going to be happy with 105,000 
people in our Corrections system? With a 70 percent recidivism 
rate? Revolving door, back and forth? In so short a space that 
we're taking away space used for classrooms, education programs, 
arts programs, and we're just warehousing prisoners. 

Now, I have Soledad, CTF, in my district, which I go 
there quite often when they invite me. And one of my staff is 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



158 
on the Friends Outside group and attends the very frequent 
meetings down there. 

And this is what I think Mr. Gomez would offer, with 
my knowledge of him over the years when he was with the 
Department in the under-secretary position and now, and that is, 
we cannot continue to just build more prisons and have people 
just come and continue to go back to prison, committing 
additional crimes . 

I think the programs that I've seen are successful. 

i 

They're providing a college degree or equivalent. It's being 
done in many of our institutions for those who can be part of 
that. It's sponsored by San Jose State down at Soledad and 
Hartnell. The recidivism rate drops from 70 percent down to 
about 10. 

The other education programs that were there, many of 
them have gone away because of space, also trains people to get 
back into society and jobs. There are some correction programs 
that has worked throughout the whole system. Recidivism rates 
drops to 25 percent. 

These are the things I think that are important, 
because I, for one, do not want to continue building more 
prisons, and not have meaningful programs there just so that 
people can have a chance to do on the outside. 

I sent -- I gave Mr. Gomez a copy, because I was 
distressed with the cutbacks made at Soledad, where the decision 
was made by the warden, who I have a lot of respect for, but I 
don't know, if you're the overall Director of the Department, I 



4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



159 
think when we have to make cuts, philosophy of the Department 
should prevail, not what an individual prison may want to do. 

Now, what they did in Soledad, they cut the two paint 
and fender auto body loose, did not meet the air quality 
standards, so they closed them down. Laid off everybody for a 
few hundred thousand dollars. But we could have, with their 
budget, I would have rather seen these programs continue on. 
Offer vocational training. 

You need paint shops and body shops, and these 
persons that learn that trade there can go on the outside and 
find that. 

The same thing is happening — so what do they do? 
They cut back on education, when I think I would rather see them 
cut back, and this is my own opinion, in other areas. And that, 
I think, is the philosophy that should made throughout the 
entire state, and not allow the individuals to make it at these 
prisons . 

So, by and large, as I said, the testimony here was 
just shocking. And people had great courage to come here in 
tears and say their stories. 

But, you know, from this, I think we can build and go 
back into what I hope will be a new vision in our Department of 
Corrections, making it truly one of rehabilitation, vocational 
training, education. And those that can be rehabilitated, I 
think we should do it. It's going to save us a lot of money and 
put people back into society. 

And I think Mr. Gomez offers that philosophy that 



3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



160 
will be proven out to benefit the entire State of California. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Thank you, Senator. 

Do I hear a motion? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move approval of the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Senator Beverly moves the 
confirmation be recommended do pass to the full Senate of James 
Gomez, Director of the Department of Corrections. 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. 

Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Mello Aye. 

Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. 

Senator Craven. Senator Roberti. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Roberti Aye. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: The vote is four to zero; 
confirmation is recommended to the Floor. 

MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN ROBERTI: You're welcome. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 

7: 40 P.M. ] 



2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

11 

J 
12 

I 

13 

14 

ll 

1 
15 ; 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2. \ 

22 



23 



24 



25 
26 

27 
28 



161 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of 
the State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; 
that the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel 
or attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand this / s day of April, 1992. 



Wx-lil 



EVELY^J. MIZAK^> 
^ Shorthand Reporter 



193-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $7.50 per copy plus 
current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1100 J Street, B-15 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Please include Senate Publication Number 193-R when ordering.